I think the ability to loiter is one of the key attributes of subsonic missiles. Missiles like this can loiter outside of radar detection range and wait until anti-radiation missiles, drones and electronic ghosts saturate enemy defenses forcing them to light up their SAM sites, and expend their arsenals. Once that threshold point is reached these loitering missiles can be redirected to target the remaining high value targets of opportunity.
@DanAth-il1uq Жыл бұрын
Loiter is very subjective … how long can it loiter? 15 mins? 30 mins? Hours? Doesn’t look like it can carry that much fuel.
@CorePathway8 ай бұрын
Their ability to maneuver also helps. Kalibers are like a fastball right down the middle with no movement. That’s why without effective SEAD they have a dismal hit rate unless directed at apartment buildings with poor air defenses.
@dwr333333333311 күн бұрын
@@DanAth-il1uqBidens secretary of defense once stated that the electric tomahawks can loiter depending only on how long their charge last! 😂
@M88881 Жыл бұрын
We saw in Syria how good he is. As a Patriot in S Arabia or Ukraine....
@ThreeLittleBirds111 Жыл бұрын
Saddam Hussein hated the Tomahawk ...I still remember the night sky over Baghdad...haven't seen anything like that since.
@unclescar5616 Жыл бұрын
Hypersonic missiles may provide genuine strategic worth if the target's "worth, importance or replacement time surpasses the potential cost of a $100 million hypersonic missile"... Like an aircraft carrier? Seems like the only reason why US rivals are obsessed with their development.
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
Trying to make sense of what you wrote. 👆 I need help.
@ajibolaibitayo1538 Жыл бұрын
@Valdomort Tell They are not real hypersonic missiles and that is why they are cheap 😂
@serpentphoenix Жыл бұрын
@Valdomort Tell Typical vatnik liar. It costs around 10-12 million per kinzal, and even those are ballistic missiles that USA already had for years. The GAM-87 Skybolt was basically the Kinzhal.
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
@Valdomort Tell yes, it cost $100 million for the U.S. Funny, the Patriot system costs over $1 billion and is practically useless.
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
@@serpentphoenix wtf is the GAM87 Skybolt? Did you learn that from CRUX? I bet they told you the Tomahawk is better than the Kinzhal too huh? We don't have hypersonic missiles and can't afford them. Their missile tech is generations ahead. Yes, generations. GAM87 sh@t for brains is just that. Obviously. Our Patriot system is based on the S-200. Our stealth tech is based on old Soviet research from the 50's. China doesn't copy from us, but from the Russians who help them. 🙃
@sashimongba9163 Жыл бұрын
Comparing Tomahawk missiles to hypersonic missiles is like comparing an attack helicopter to a fighter jet.
@TgamerBio5529 Жыл бұрын
Hypersonic missile still be shot down 😂😂😂 and no country yet hasn’t got one.
@kcusmykciD69 Жыл бұрын
@@TgamerBio5529 yessss ssiiir. You smacked him right through🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣pootin also declared invincible. But patriot whooped it
@darkcloud583011 ай бұрын
@@TgamerBio5529What are you smoking? Must be something strong. Show evidence hypersonic missile was shot down. I know you probably thinking about the Ukrainian propaganda, which they have no evidence of. Even the US admits it is not possible.
@darkcloud583011 ай бұрын
@@kcusmykciD69Wow, you sure have Russophobia. You need to seek professional help. I didn't even know this video was about the war. I thought it was just about missiles. I guess I am wrong since you guys here only can think of propaganda.
@arsenijearsen304111 ай бұрын
Better maybe slingshot with Stinger. 😊
@Sacto1654 Жыл бұрын
The biggest problem with hypersonic missiles: the infrared signature is *HUGE* from either the exhaust plume of the propulsion system or the thermal heating of flying at over Mach 5 (even the Chinese haven't solved that problem). As such, they are easily tracked by modern long range IR detection systems.
@geektechpow4537 Жыл бұрын
Problem is not to detect, is how are you supposed to intercept such fast missiles? you need fast calculation of the right place to "intercept" and this is only if it is not able to change its course...
@dcsmax Жыл бұрын
Track it all you want, if you cant take it out all the tracking means zero.
@darkcloud583011 ай бұрын
??? Where did you get that information? You can track where they were, so who cares. Where they going or heading is the important part. Hypersonic doesn't fly in a straight line. So what if you somehow see it, how is your radar supposed to calculate the interception point if it can't even tell where it is heading. Please don't confuse yourself with tracking and intercepting.
@scoshyg51339 ай бұрын
He’s not confusing anything. Tracking is the hardest part of missile defense. That’s the whole point. He’s making about the IRS signature. The IR signature makes it easily tracked no matter how maneuverable it is. And you are referring to hypersonic glide vehicles when you talk about maneuverability. They are two different things, and there has not been successfully fielded hypersonic glide munition that has a high percentage of effectiveness yet.
@BFBMTb9 ай бұрын
@geektechpow4537 once it's hypersonic, the missile is not controllable due to the plasma barrier it generates.
@jeffreyoneill4082 Жыл бұрын
Stormshadow seems to show that stealth is effective against air defence.
@willl7780Ай бұрын
Russia jams them pretty easy
@louisgiokas2206 Жыл бұрын
What you don't address is the issue with hypersonic missiles. The reason that Mach 5 is the chosen speed is that is the speed where the object actually changes the atmosphere it comes in contact with. The air is ionized. This affects communications and sensors. So, it is not clear whether a hypersonic missile can effectively change course during flight in reaction to sensor input.
@barryrammer7906 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for your expertise
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
There is no enough ionization to disrupt communication in sharp nosed hyper-sonic missiles. It's only an issue with large blunt bodies such as the Appolo capsule.
@louisgiokas2206 Жыл бұрын
@@williamzk9083 Well, it depends on the communication. The sharp-nosed types are not the highly maneuverable weapons that are being touted as unstoppable.
@jasonsadventure Жыл бұрын
@@williamzk9083 *said:* _"ionization doesn't prevent comms if nose is sharp."_ First, whoa (links?)! Second, lets assume it can communicate. Since no radars work while inside a plasma shock wave, right? This means hypersonic missiles can only hit stationary targets. Making them useless against our carriers.
@mark4371 Жыл бұрын
@@jasonsadventure Obviously never heard of hyper glide Never mind you keep believing in that garbage militarily called the U.S.
@microcerto Жыл бұрын
Russia and China have the ability to launch missiles like the Tomahawk missiles! Missiles such as the Tomahawk and hypersonic missiles have different mission profile characteristics and can be used independently or combined to achieve a target or objective.
@user-ym5bl2vl7c9 ай бұрын
US is only showing their old military assets on KZbin,the best ones are classified,not for KZbin consumption.😆😆😝😝😛😛🤭🤭😈😈
@craigkdillon Жыл бұрын
I wish a discussion of ECCM could be done. Electronic Counter Counter-Measures is what makes missiles today able to survive to target. Hypersonics are supposed to survive because their speed makes ECM and intercept difficult due to lack of time, and maneuverability. However, US and others are already working on new defenses that will intercept or divert them. The stealth of the LRASM and others is likely more effective, IMO. I think stealth is harder to counter. Also, ECCM gets better and better. The Tomahawk is supposedly very survivable - i.e. hard to stop. AND its a lot cheaper than hypersonics.
@M88881 Жыл бұрын
😂😂😂
@bjmgraphics617 Жыл бұрын
There can be two flavors of the Tomahawk missiles, subsonic and hypersonic.
@sameerthakur720 Жыл бұрын
You need large numbers of cheaper missiles to saturate enemy defences. If you can make cheaper tomahawks so that you have 5-7 tomahawks for the price of 1 Hypersonic missile, you would be better off (assuming you have enough platforms).
@IsraelMilitaryChannel Жыл бұрын
Either that or stealthy missiles like JASSM or LRASM. After all the US opted stealthy missiles to bypass air defenses while Russia and China opted for hypersonic missiles. Both achieves the same objective(penetrate air defense) but by different method. One is by stealth the other is by speed.
@sameerthakur720 Жыл бұрын
@@IsraelMilitaryChannel Though my country has gone in for supersonic cruise missiles and is planning hypersonic missiles, I would have preferred stealth missiles, because the metallurgy and manufacturing costs are lesser and you get to project a bigger warhead to a longer range.
@dad-ms8mz Жыл бұрын
nop. it modern battlefield it work. example is russia ukraine war
@sameerthakur720 Жыл бұрын
@@dad-ms8mz NATO had developed techniques to counter supersonic missiles like Kh-22 and KSR-5 during the Cold War itself. With modern electronics, Hypersonic missiles are not that much of a problem for important well defended targets. In Ukraine, Russian hypersonic missiles have destroyed power stations, factories, but no bunkers, aircraft hangars etc. PAC-3 batteries have shot down around 40-60 % of incoming hypersonic missiles. And this is Ukraine, which only has newly acquired Patriot systems without any DEW, AEW systems. The US, with so many other tracking systems, longer experience with the Patriot missiles, as well as systems like THAADS, would have an 80-90% success in taking down hypersonic missiles. In modern warfare, missiles are no longer wonder weapons. Cheaper.missiles/drones in numbers will be a better option. Remember Stalin's words, "Quantity has a quality of it's own." A modern Rafale or Typhoon can shoot down 10 WWII Spitfires... but it cannot be in 10 places at the same time. The Spitfires can.
@jamesstreet228 Жыл бұрын
@@sameerthakur720 MALD missiles would be the missiles used for the opening salvo to lead to SEADs and eventually DEADs. The MALD is a decoy missile that mimicks the squawk of whatever plane it is programmed for. When a SAM system picks it up it identifies it as an F15, F16, F18 or whatever is programmed into the missile. It has a range well outside (500) miles the range of a SAM system. After a few salvo's of those then there would be more MALD's and maybe some HARM's mixed in. Tomahawks would be way down the line and wouldn't be fired until the SEAD's mission is largely over.
@losferwords7830 Жыл бұрын
I see russians talking crap in the thread about hypersonics. America made hypersonics that could carry MAN in the 1950's. Just look at the list of X Planes.
@johndyson410911 ай бұрын
It all makes sense now! Tomahawk is plain and simple way more bang for your buck'!!
@Jerry-kd8zc11 ай бұрын
From an unqualified observer's standpoint although I am in instrumentation and control in automated processes. Perhaps the USA is not showing all their cards on the table about the capabilities of the tomahawk or LRASM missile, so its Axis Nemesis like China Russia or north Korea is not aware of its stealth and jamming as well as its maneuvering capabilities.
@user-ym5bl2vl7c9 ай бұрын
Very well said😆
@kwonekstrom21389 ай бұрын
It isn’t talked about much, but the US uses electronic warfare to improve the survivability of our tomahawks. China is well aware that it lags behind the US in this area.
@RubbittTheBruise Жыл бұрын
This vid is only 47 minutes old and already didn't age well. $106 mill for a Х-47М2 Кинжал, now estimated at about $10 mill. Anyone who thinks that Russia hasn't arranged for a special welcome for a swarm of 100 or so cruise missiles hasn't been paying attention.
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
This vid is 9 minutes of brain cell destruction.
@qwertyqwerty-zi6dr Жыл бұрын
Well, that russian missile is not rly a true hypersonic missile with high maneuverability, it s a modified balistic missile launched from jets
@josephstalin9357 Жыл бұрын
@@qwertyqwerty-zi6dr aero ballistic missile
@isayagain Жыл бұрын
Yea this not accurate statement, hypersonics can go mach 5+ AND high maneuverability. Kinzhal is a air launched ballistic missle ie follows a predictable trajectory thus got intercepted by Patriot defense. The video is correct Russians and Chinese especially already created hypersonic for air craft carrier killers. No need to be that accurate if you put a nuclear warhead
@paulbedichek5177 Жыл бұрын
Russia is a backwards nation, incapable of technical prowess. Give Tomahawks to Ukraine,strike deep into Russia ,cut their rail and oil and gas lines.
@keli4068 Жыл бұрын
lunch 100 Tomahawk need 3 Arleigh Burke, which costs 1.8B each, If cheap subsonic missile can solve the problem why China who can outproduce anyone in the world develop HGV.
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
Because for China, it's much cheaper to produce a much superior product. Even for the U.S., it's cheaper to launch 1 or 2 hypersonic missiles to hit a it's target than multiple 100(?) cruise missiles. Average lifespan of a carrier is 20 minutes. It's not because they'll be launching thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles at them.
@rogerwilco5918 Жыл бұрын
@Aachoo Crony 😆 what "superior product"? Sources on your "20 minute" carrier nonsense? And how does China target and track something that doesn't stop moving and they can't get close to?
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
@@rogerwilco5918 China has every surface vessel tracked 24/7. So do we. They can sink our ships easily w hypersonic missiles. As their tech improves and the mass production starts, they will be able to sink any surface vessel on the globe within minutes. Get it? We have nothing remotely close to that capability. They are generations ahead, thanks to the help of the Russians. Their planes have longer range, and longer striking range. They can easily track our stealth fighters as we can theirs. Our stealth is based on Russian research from the 50's and 60's. Fun fact:The scientist is retired and resides in the US. More fun facts:Our impotent Patriot system is based on the S-200. It intercepts about 15% of normal, non-hypersonic/trajectory changing missiles. It's crap. It costs about 10x(?) less random guess, for them to produce than us. Russia out produces us by 2 miles. China's industrial capacity exceeds ours at the height of ww2. In December, 2017, Russia announced it has enough hypersonic missiles that it constitutes a 2nd deterrent in addition to the nuclear one. They just recently upped their production by multitudes...they say 5x(?) Anyways, a lot. Their nuclear technology is generations ahead of ours. They supercede is in everything except subs and recon. There, it seems that we are level. And thank god too, otherwise we could lose a nuclear war. We could possibly lose on as it is? I'm not totally sure tbh. Check Deagel predictions USA 2025 and compare it w Russia, China, India, and other countries such as NATO countries. Don't panic. Imo it's just the result of a simulation of conventional war. They update it periodically but have stopped publishing them. You can still find older versions. It's logical to conclude that the US are no suckers for getting into a war vs a peer knowing it would get it's butt kicked. So it's easy to deduce. No war, only proxy wars. We are the more bloodthirsty side and we can't win, not today or any time soon. The Russians and Chinese don't have much interest to start ww3 any time soon either. It would hamper their economy and they're winning that too. We"re approaching the nadir of a cycle in our history That's good news. Because it means things will only get better after this next hurdle. America will always be strong. No ww3.
@hubpaq Жыл бұрын
@@aachoocrony5754 the lifespan of china will be 20 minutes if it succeeds in sinking a single aircraft carrier and its crew, bye bye communist china
@niweshlekhak9646 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawk V gonna be really deadly with it's flight path changing ability.
@tolabassist3302 Жыл бұрын
Don't tomahawks already change flight paths?
@niweshlekhak9646 Жыл бұрын
@@tolabassist3302 Tomahawk iV can change path but it would have to be given alternative sites before launch, Tomahawk V doesn't need alternative site info given to it, a human can remote control it.
@ZiGGi03 Жыл бұрын
That’s crazy I never knew they could do that .
@bekeneel Жыл бұрын
But does that avoid interception with changing flight path as cruise missile? I know it would help with ballistic missiles.
@jampie2789 Жыл бұрын
Russian Kalibr cruisemissile already has that feature...so its about time the Tomahawk gets the same feature
@umu8934 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawk cruise missile is already been catch up by Russia's Kalibr cruise missile in its field of expertise but more better and a bang for the money than the US company have done 😹😹😹
@GegeDxD10 ай бұрын
And name one American missile that is more advanced than Russian?
@budisuwandhi6818 Жыл бұрын
Did you know Tomahawk missiles only strike countries with no or a little air defence like Iraq.
@mfundomkhonta750010 ай бұрын
The s 300 ND 400 are there in Syria
@budisuwandhi681810 ай бұрын
@@mfundomkhonta7500 Did US strike Syria with Tomohawk , when ?. S300 and S400 only recently install when Russia decided to help defend Syria.
@jayeshborole4032 ай бұрын
this is the most fake video ever seen😂
@tylerdurden40068 ай бұрын
Lmfao, that's like comparing a bow and arrow to an ak 47...😂😂😂😂
@dwaneanderson803911 ай бұрын
You missed one of the biggest advantages of Tomahawks. They fly like an airplane with a turbojet engine. Thus, they can fly very long distances like an airplane at very low altitude. This enables them to literally fly under the radar, making them extremely hard to engage with air defenses.
@willl7780Ай бұрын
thats great but in flat terrain they can realy hide
@quazars236 Жыл бұрын
TOMAHAWK: --------- of "U.S." arsenal.. a testament of HUMAN ingenuity and technological prowess...... a testament to the power of HUMAN imagination.. HYPERSONIC: ----(maybe of ALIENS)😅😅😅
@dliu1158 ай бұрын
As a US combat veteran myself, it kind of sounds like propaganda to justify the USs late entry to the hypersonic missile environment.
@per619 Жыл бұрын
Russia or China cost is not $100M per missile. That's only fat taxpayer dollar engorged US defense contractors. Ask Elon Musk: $4B for ONE launch with ULA vs. perhaps $100-$250M for Starship.
@iamyoda66 Жыл бұрын
ULA has 100% success rate, Starship has still to prove itself.😢
@IsraelMilitaryChannel Жыл бұрын
So tell us how much does the Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons cost?
@tallflguy Жыл бұрын
Gotta love AI generated videos
@craigkdillon Жыл бұрын
The comments show that a lot of people think the US lags in hypersonics. Not true. The old Phoenix missile was Mach 4., and that was 50 years ago. The US has known about hypersonics since the 1950's, when the X-15 went hypersonic as a manned craft. BUT, the US has not developed one for several reasons. 1. It is very very expensive. 2. The whole point is to hit a target more reliably, and be more difficult to stop. That can be more cheaply achieved using ECCM (like the Tomahawk), or stealth (like the LRASM) or use both (LRASM again).
@SewTubular Жыл бұрын
1- Russian Kinzhal costs $12 million. Russia currently testing a smaller/cheaper mach 6 air-launched hypersonic. Very interested to see what this new missile can do. 2- Both Russia and Iran are very advanced in EW systems, but I have no idea how hypersonic speed effects these. 3- Iran recently announced that they now have a hypersonic missile, but it's a large ground launched missile with a top speed of mach 15. Currently Russia appears to be the only country with a hypersonic missile that can be air-launched by a fighter jet.
@Samson373 Жыл бұрын
Hypersonics are, in general, wildly cost-INeffective. The widespread enthusiasm for them is therefore a mystery. In the US, there are apparently 70 different hypersonic programs. Likely a huge waste of money.
@joemama3372 Жыл бұрын
The 1st nuclear bomb was also very cost ineffective. You could buy so many guns and bullets for that amount of money. The government and military were also dumb for investing in that too. (sarcasim) The development of cutting edge technology is always astronomical amounts. It doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. I find the arguments that "what we have is good enough", is a short term excuse to appease the citizens because we can't build it. It's likely the same thing foreign countries say to their own military and citizens in the face of more advanced US technology in stealth, space, ships, etc. "look at those stupid Americans... those aircraft carriers are so cost ineffective and a huge waste of money..." If your son, daughter, mother, father, wife, husband, or home, country, was captured, killed, by terroists, nazi, enemy invaders. Would you say, "let's consider the cost"?
@andrewhirsch6472 Жыл бұрын
It is true hypersonics are cost-ineffective now, but, after some years of trial and error, they can be made suitable for lower-cost mass production later on. To maintain our superpower status, we need to be able to throw everything plus the kitchen sink at advanced enemies, and that includes land attack missiles of varying speeds and flight profiles.
@kwonekstrom21389 ай бұрын
The US did not invested heavily into single use hypersonic weapons until it became a prestige thing. It does appear that there were a few reusable hypersonic vehicle programs… and at least one of these was intended to deploy weapons (Likely a HGV like ARRW)… The driving factor for enthusiasm in hypersonics is Russian and Chinese propaganda about how they lead in the area.
@nasosnasos8054 Жыл бұрын
Price ?
@jeffnelson2197 Жыл бұрын
😉sure, sure they are…
@davidorth4906 Жыл бұрын
By the time you read this comment. The USA made 10 cruise missiles, everyday. That's over 20 years of 10 a Day. It's better than a hypersonic missile..,. because we have Lots of them.
@deedat81 Жыл бұрын
Cope headline
@rogerwilco5918 Жыл бұрын
The title is a question?
@rgloria4010 ай бұрын
Any missile can improved on... Tomahawk design can be made smaller, faster, more powerful warhead, more processing power in small package and etc.... In fact, mini Tomahawk can be made to be fired from F18 super hornet, F35 Lightning or F22 Rapture.
@manuelteixeira2496 Жыл бұрын
It can navigate at ground level.
@CharlesJamison-cl4hw Жыл бұрын
Inevitable
@m80116 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawks are among the finest there was and still is. To understand what's good and what's bad for the west just picture this: we have reports of barrages of Russian Kinzhal shot down over Ukraine (Kyiv city region) that would be a testament for the Patriot system, most probably an old version, unupdated and destined for overhaul or recycling by the US. The Patriot system was never designed to intercept such hypersonic missiles and is far from the best mid altitude defense system the US developed, its operative history is plagued with mishaps and shortcomings. If proper Patriot coverage was granted a city like Kiyv would be impenetrable by Kinzhal and Kalibr missiles. Can you understand what we see in Ukraine is RIDICULOUS!? We are seeing Kyiv resorting to intercept missiles INSIDE their city center !!! With deadly debris of rockets directly falling onto homes and people in Ukraine's capital city. That's how BADLY they are in need of more defense systems... they don't even have the air defense necessary to intercept the rockets before the debris fall into residential areas. Yet what can be ascribed as not brilliant for the west is most probably repeatedly shooting down some of the most accurate and quick weapons Russia is making. How much of a technological gap must there be NOT before they can break even, but before they can just MANAGE to mount a challenge for the sheer quantity of the weaponry. Russia production isn't even able to keep up with demands for their current needs. Russia does its best with their fanatic propaganda of UNREALISTIC specs, but under operating conditions they've been repeatedly proved on the wrong many times over. That's why their Kinzhal rubbish is intercepted by a set for SCRAP Patriot battery. Russians can have their moment of glory, but in Syria, siding for the Assad regime and hitting a bunch of Bin Ladens inside a sand bunker. Besides... Tomahawks are fascinating when launched by submarines and are incredibly effective and flexible, it's like having a heavy bomber ready to hit the target with radar homing, they're outstanding.
@Tounguepunchfartbox Жыл бұрын
They usually missed the bin ladens and hit hospitals instead 😂. Seriously though, on average Russia dropped 3 guided bombs for every hit in syria.
@kasemuffin6133 Жыл бұрын
And they say the Russians are coping.
@jeffc1753 Жыл бұрын
Lol, having superior weapons to that of the mediocre Kinzal of the enemy is “coping”? Hilarious 😂.
@kevinkant6817 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawks still can’t beat goat herders in Afghanistan
@rosevitelli5814 Жыл бұрын
Okay 😂 it's not for taking out people 😂😂
@kevinkant6817 Жыл бұрын
@@rosevitelli5814 sure it is, and Nato still lost to goat herders in Afghanistan
@kdrapertrucker11 ай бұрын
Tomahawk flies nap of the earth soyouain't gonna see it until it's right there, hypersonics fly in the upper atmosphere, and between the radar signature, and the sun like IR signature they are impossible to miss. And are noharder to shoot down then ballistic missiles
@Gurkhalik0ch0r08 ай бұрын
Denial is one hell of a drug.
@bumbum45928 ай бұрын
Magnemite found in volcanic Bermuda triangle strong possiblities within space propulsion travel electromagnetic fields & electronic plasma Radiation
@shadoweagle6891 Жыл бұрын
Install nuclear warheads on the tomahawk
@-oysterthief444410 ай бұрын
Tomahawks can fly at 100 feet (30m) and match terrain contours. There is no stopping them without it flying overhead a manpad equipped infantryman
@TheSergicoffee9 ай бұрын
If they are so strong why need Ukraine to provoke Russia?
@Jhihmoac Жыл бұрын
I've always been impressed by the Tomahawk... They helped to introduce a new concept known as the _"Surgical Strike"..._ Thanks to the T-Hawk, you can now take out the enemy HQ, barracks, and motor pool while still leaving the movie theater, hamburger stand, and the cathouse relatively untouched and intact!
@CorePathway8 ай бұрын
In Russia we use sledgehammer for surgery. Leg hurts? WHACK to the head. Now you feel nothing.
@straight_intro7 ай бұрын
@@CorePathwayyes, we see how you manage to exist on this planet without using your brain
@AlehMKZ7 ай бұрын
@@CorePathwayAnd Americans are looking for and protecting their oil in foreign countries and on other continents. 😂😂😂😂😂
@falvegas51110 ай бұрын
One Hypersonic is More Than 10X the cost of a Smart (even Stealthy) Cruise Missile. maybe 1 or 2 out of the 10 would get through, but for the same price 1 or 2 F-35's could deliver Missiles to a Capital Ship. We still believe that Hypersonics "Can-Not -Be" Accurately Targeted in the Lower Atmosphere .... not unless they drop down to sonic or supersonic. I'd put my money on Stealth and Exceptional maneuvering of a Cruise Missile.
@GegeDxD10 ай бұрын
When you're unable to make better ones, they are not bad either 😅
@sajithudayanga65038 ай бұрын
Exactly bro.. Remembering me the story of " The Fox & Grapes 🍇 😂😂😂
@CharlesJamison-cl4hw Жыл бұрын
May God be with
@rickrick196 Жыл бұрын
Sure didn’t seem like A1 generated for anyone camping in the Maine mountains when test Tomahawk’s and chase jets were flying overhead constantly
@rickrick196 Жыл бұрын
1970 and 1980s
@antinwoilluminati758310 ай бұрын
How is it possible.
@gotbb2076Ай бұрын
Why comparing the price of a subsonic cruise weapon to an hypersonic one? Their purpose is not the same. Compare apple to apple. The USA should be embarassed and start to think where the money really go
@Wire_Mesh_Police8 ай бұрын
The adjectives you use don’t even make sense half the time. Unwavering accuracy?
@dioghaltasfoirneartach7258 Жыл бұрын
Yes. They are.
@aachoocrony5754 Жыл бұрын
This channel is the best. Increased my iq by 15 points already and that was from watching just a dozen videos.
@joeyshover657410 ай бұрын
Send some to Ukraine! That will get things going for sure! They have a distance of around 2500 miles😮
@ericclausen6772 Жыл бұрын
For price they are great
@vanmush6 ай бұрын
In what universe?
@mgronich948 Жыл бұрын
The cost arguement is very valid. But the US navy (and likely the Chinese and perhaps Russian navies have equally good defenses against Tomahawks. The Tomahawk has very small wings, it is not manueverable. A high agility interceptor like the sea RAM with a 30km range is much much cheaper than the Tomahawk with a 1000 km range.
@ShadowGamer-xu9jc11 ай бұрын
Both have a different purpose.. and if overcoming defense systems are required then cheap drones can also do it.. so it means cheap drones are better than Tomahawks?
@ducodarling11 ай бұрын
Correct. In the end, ant sized robots will defeat us all.
@kwonekstrom21389 ай бұрын
The US is upgrading the radar on patriot specifically because of the threat that cheap drones pose to a billion dollar air defense system…
@user-kg4fr9jr7v Жыл бұрын
Why hypers are considered so costly? Can mass production lower the price maybe x10 or x30? I don't believe pure material & labour hyper-sonic rocket is made of can cost so much
@Tounguepunchfartbox Жыл бұрын
Requires much more advanced manufacturing methods, advanced materials, highly skilled labor, lengthy manufacturing, etc. you can slap together a tomohaek whereas you need a clean room and a team of engineers and physicists to actually manufacture a HSCM. Literally ANY minor defect ( as small as a scratch or chip) can make something disintegrate at those speeds.
@user-kg4fr9jr7v Жыл бұрын
@David blaine I don't believe something can cost so much. There is no Hubble's mirrors inside. Just special obliteration material protecting warhead from excessive heat. Maybe some special covers and some titan elements. Russian kinjal is a simple iscander missile suspended under mig29. Your Orion designed to withstand and enters the atmosphere at mach 32, so you do have the expertise. I think your corporations as usually fools you drawing mad bills and trying to sell wonder-waffel by tens price to enrich from budget
@kwonekstrom21389 ай бұрын
There are a variety of reasons…. the biggest is heat. At hypersonic speeds, the surface of an aircraft is hot enough to compromise titanium. Managing that heat is expensive. The SR-71 at mach 3 had severe G limits because of this. At speed a turn would cause the plane to disintegrate otherwise. Maneuvering is a requirement of a hypersonic missile. The second is thrust… most hypersonic weapons have a booster fit to send a payload into orbit. The third is time, moving at those velocities doesn’t give you much time. So… while costs may come down eventually, each of these problems are so rare that they do not benefit from normal commercial advancement like subsonic or even supersonic cruise missiles do.
@user-ym5bl2vl7c9 ай бұрын
Tomahawk is old but still gold.hypersonic missiles are like noisy dogs that don't bite.👿👿👿😝😝😆😆😛
@pernykvist3442 Жыл бұрын
Syria shot down 21 Tomahawks!
@marcosferreira-rz2ow Жыл бұрын
😂 não mesmo
@ioanbota9397 Жыл бұрын
They are realy powerful this missile
@likemostthings Жыл бұрын
Tomohawks are extremley effective against a non-peer advisory with zero air support and decimated air defence but we've never seen the two on oposite side of a war so it's hard to say what is more effective in the field. The cost of the hypersonics are like 5 times as much? There's something to be said for cost effective munitions and being able to blast out 5 to every one.
@inkmore9395 Жыл бұрын
All these military experts in the comments 😂
@robertoambrosios.3624 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawks showed high rate of intergerence in the last big number atack in syria
@lukeamato2348 Жыл бұрын
That can be taken care of
@snsproduc Жыл бұрын
no they didn't. Based on what bullshit.
@2Sage-7Poets Жыл бұрын
you mean tomahawk level up..
@seemovielove359710 ай бұрын
then we only need to use hypersonic missiles with nuclear heads
@gde-to-kogda-to6130 Жыл бұрын
What if GPS not gona work????Anybody ask that question? Experts vashu mat'))))
@loncoronel864411 ай бұрын
Precision strikes over speed strikes?, common sense counts leave it to analyst whom the best offensive stikes notable?
@CharlesJamison-cl4hw Жыл бұрын
GO
@fudbob58898 ай бұрын
S400 anyone?
@pashapasovski586010 ай бұрын
Ask Serbian AA knocking them down in bunches
@dcsmax Жыл бұрын
Shame. poor uncle sam does not have hypersonic shovels yet......
@sqkyrical990 Жыл бұрын
How did tomahok do in afganistan?😅
@asiaone99911 ай бұрын
is this a feel good channel? hahahaha
@wadopotato33 Жыл бұрын
It is simple. My opinion is that the Tomahawk Cruise missile is better. The Russian Kinzhals are thought to be almost 10 miillion per missile. For that cost you have to think, is a single hypersonic missile more cost effective than 5 Tomahawks. To me, since no system has shown that it can effectively hit all missiles and the Patriot recently shot down Kinzhal missiles, then it is probably more cost effective to use the cheaper missiles and overwhelm Air Defenses through volume. Russia fired 6 kinzhals at a cost of more than 60 million dollars and none got through. That is big boy money Russia doesn't have. I would bet if they had launched 30 Kalibrs they would have been more effective.
@melhiorlector2680 Жыл бұрын
Поменьше смотрите ваше телевидение пожалуйста.
@sajithudayanga65038 ай бұрын
@@melhiorlector2680 this is what happened when someone watched too much mainstream medias 😅😅😅
@darakhshanshahid56439 ай бұрын
Where was it in AFGHANISTAN WAR?
@justinlegend265 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawk missile are too slow speed if you compare these to HYPERSONIC missile surely unmatched undetectable LIGHTNING SPEED 😉🤗🎉
@skyd722410 ай бұрын
In hollywood
@zamraaj0652 Жыл бұрын
In 1998, over 100 Tomahawk missiles were fired by the US navy against suspected Alqaeda camps in Afghanistan over Pakistani airspace. Few of these fell in Pakistan. Some of these hit their target causing about 20 casualties and damage to the target sites. The expected results were not achieved because only a low percentage of missiles could hit their target. And that was in the most ideal environment when the planner had all the time at their disposal and there was no opposing AD system.
@alb.1911 Жыл бұрын
Ok Ivan. 🤣
@iamyoda66 Жыл бұрын
You just made up that shit up 😂 100% not true.
@zamraaj0652 Жыл бұрын
@@iamyoda66 Few of those missiles must have hit your shit, splashing it all around. I was then working in an organization which was directly concerned with this occurrence. You sitting thousands of miles away are passing this rubbish judgement. Typical hubris and arrogance.
@nubbyg9096 Жыл бұрын
1998? This 2023
@jasonsadventure Жыл бұрын
Okay, so in theory we could by 50 tomahawks for the price of one hypersonic missile. But can we build that many? Can we deploy that many? Can we attack with that many?
@IsraelMilitaryChannel Жыл бұрын
Great points. Also Burke class have 96 VLS and most of them are used for air defenses. So to carry 50 Tomahawks is a stretch. However those roles are for Ohio class submarines which could carry 154 Tomahawk missiles.
@jasonsadventure Жыл бұрын
@@IsraelMilitaryChannel You're right about our SSGNs. However all four of those boats the Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Georgia, are set to be decommissioned by the end of 2028. Maybe "Palletized Munition Concept and just dump missiles out the back of C-130 or a C-17. But PMC only uses JASSM missiles as far as I know. Meaning, still no viable tomahawk solution.
@SewTubular Жыл бұрын
Actually you could buy 5 tomahawks for the price of one Russian Kinzhal missile, and Russia is currently testing a smaller / cheaper mach 6 air-launched hypersonic missile code named GREMLIN.
@jasonsadventure Жыл бұрын
@@SewTubular *said:* _"you could buy 5 tomahawks for a Kinzhal"_ Ah, yeah but who cares, right? We're comparing tomahawks to our stuff - to answer , *_"Are our hypersonic missiles worth it?"_* Anyway, the Kinzhal is just an air-launched ballistic missile based on the Iskander missile.
@SewTubular Жыл бұрын
@@jasonsadventure Russia states that the Kinzhal is a hypersonic mach 12 missile that is built on the base of the Iskander missile. I have seen no proof that the Kinzhal can't maneuver in flight.
@oldenshort1346 Жыл бұрын
Guarantee Russia's Hypersonic missiles dont cost 106 Million Dollars. Just look how many they have used so far.
@toddabbott781 Жыл бұрын
HS missiles are not that special. ICBM and other ballistic missiles have been HS for many decades. Even the ability to maneuver has been around since the 80s. They can not maneuver anywhere near what people ,think. At this speeds it takes miles to turn. If they turn faster it bleeds off lots of speed and can damage the missile. Even HS cruise missiles are not that good. See they can not afford the fuel or the heat generated in the thicker atmosphere near the surface so they must cruise at 15,000 feet. What do you think is harder to shoot down... a HS missile at 15,000 feet that you can detect from 200 miles away or a sub sonic cruise missile travelling at 100-300 feet off the ground following terrain? As demonstrated the Patriot missile is more than capable of shooting down HS missiles like the Kinzhal as they have shot down 13 out of 13 so far. Yes the Kinzhal is not that capable of maneuvering, but that does not matter as the Patriot is protecting Kiev so the HS missile has to come to it and the Patriot missiles are far more maneuverable. And HS missiles that bounce along the atmosphere are prime targets for THADD and Aegis and those are designed to hit targets travelling at Mach 25 anyways. It would be far more effective to make a stealth cruise missile travelling subsonic.
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
Let’s be realistic. A subsonic cruise missile is going to be detected and shot down by modern SAM defences. A well defended target with a layers of guns and SAMS will be safe from Tomahawk. I get Americans don’t like to be beaten and I get they will catch up but let’s not pretend they are better. The Russian Kalibr missile which is the size of tomahawk is being very cost effectively stopped by a 1970 German 35mm SPAAG called Gepard.
@Tounguepunchfartbox Жыл бұрын
From a tomohawk… but what about 60? Coming from different directions. I can send a saturation strike of 60 sea skimming tomohawks or 1 HSCM for 100 million… I wouldn’t bet losing a war on a single HSCM.
@r.s.w.k4569 Жыл бұрын
TomHawk is old. But if you fire 40 at a high value cruiser like Chinese type 55, will it get every single one? We are adding maritime strike tomahawk and will probably refit existing tomahawks with the maritime strike seeker.
@davidlong3696 Жыл бұрын
The Tomohawk missile is capable of Nap of the Earth flight that negates the guidance systems of surface to air defenses.
@williamzk9083 Жыл бұрын
@@Tounguepunchfartbox Tomahawk Block 5 has probably reduced RCS from 0.5 sqm close to 0.1 but its still delectable though only at close range. It will certainly be useful. If it's not enough there is LRASM and JASM
@jamesstreet228 Жыл бұрын
The tomahawk would not be the missile of choice for an opening attack. The MALD missile would be the first that any SAM system will encounter. They can mimick the squawk of any plane they're programmed to mimick. They're anywhere from $30,000 to $100,000+-. There's even a MALD J or jamming missile. There's also something called Suter Technology that can be used. It's how Israel flies non stealth aircraft past Russian air defenses without being detected. There's no need to spend millions when you can spend thousands.
@live4noodles Жыл бұрын
No they are not
@RandleBeckford Жыл бұрын
It only superior in getting shot down by countries which actually have air defence 😮
@Ognjen19 Жыл бұрын
cope
@CharlesJamison-cl4hw Жыл бұрын
No talking please
@theCurtis1982 Жыл бұрын
Yeah wherever you say 😂
@emiliojacinto3855 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawk missiles are slow and very vulnerable target.
@nidhinkn59809 ай бұрын
✅💯
@rosevitelli5814 Жыл бұрын
We need to laugh at China and Russia think about this 1 hypersonic or 100 Tomahawks at 1 mil a pop i will take 100 Tomahawks everytime hypersonics are good for 1st strike capabilities like weapon bunkers or Aircraft Carriers something worth a lot Russia is just wasting money
@MrDCrosswell10 ай бұрын
Wars are not won in Hollywood. Your assertions are only outdone by the ignorance in the comments.
@FoxtrotAlpha173 Жыл бұрын
Instead on waging wars and wasting money Why not to spend all this money on poverty alleviation across the globe and drought hit African areas??.Just an idea
@ayomidebusari5881 Жыл бұрын
Tomahawk missiles are superior to hypersonic missiles?? You must be crazy. If so why is the US struggling to make its own hypersonic missile 😂
@leeofallon925811 ай бұрын
A time and place for each tool, not to forget cost ...
@ASR1947 Жыл бұрын
In your dreams
@pepperoni-prepper8 ай бұрын
massive cope anyone!!
@Snow-vi9ix Жыл бұрын
You will see one day this missile transformer into hypersonic for sure !