Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Why's the US investing $1.3bn into a hypersonic weapons satellite tracking system?" video.

  1.  @wolfmaster0579  Thats just people who don't know what they are talking about Example The DF-21 is claimed as carrier killer but is far from that In order for it to hit, It needs mid-course and terminal guidance. That is a point for vulnerability as EW jamming can disrupt its communication rendering it useless Same with AWACS killer missiles, again requires mid-course and terminal guidance which if jammed makes the missile useless The missile requires constant updates till its own seeker locks on As long as you can jam before the missiles onboard systems go active, 9 of 10 times, you will survive China's claimed Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) test doesn't change the fact that advance detection systems can be provide warning The US can defend against any hypersonic weapon currently, the problem is making it cost efficient and accurate The Chinese DFs and Russian Avanguard can be intercepted by the SM-3 very easily but the SM-3 runs between 11-25 mil per missile its very expensive solution The cheaper route is upgrading the SM-2 and SM-6 which why you see the SM-2 Medium Range Block IIIC Active which is SM-2 upgraded with SM-6 tech and the SM-6 SM-6 Block IB which is SM-6 upgraded with SM-3 tech Raytheon has the glide phase interceptor program I will bet the farm that it would the Israeli Stunner seeker which they helped developed fitted to an SM body Shooting them down require more advanced sensors Oddly enough, the MQ-9 with both Broad Area Maritime Surveillance kit and STOL would be easiest solution BAMS has 18 hour endurance ,1200 mile range and able to whatever sensors needs which is an AESA radar and at least 2 Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS) instead of E-2D crews on 6 hour rotation, you can crew the MQ-9 directly from the ship
    3
  2. @Wolfmaster057 Hypersonic weapons are not overrated, the way China and Russia uses their hypersonic weapons is overrated China took a short cuts and its DFs are massive launchers that can be easily tracked and destroyed. The only ship with hypersonic weapons is their Type-055 again too few to matter. Even the CH-AS-X-13 on the Xian-H6 again too few to matter Russia's hypersonic are pretty much the same , too few to matter The MIG-31 can only carry 1 Kinzhal and they have to be specially modified to carry it Only the upgraded Tu-22M3M can carry the Kinzhal and even then, only carry 4 missiles The Zircon requires specially modified ships and subs which again too few to matter The US AGM-183 ARRW program alone is vastly to superior to Chinese and Russia programs in every way possible 1 B-1B can carry up 31 missiles. Even with the USAF inventory of just 62 planes 5 planes can carry up 155 missiles. The US can literally overwhelm both China and Russia with just 5 B-1Bs each The ARRW range is 1000 miles and claims Mach 20 as its designed speed From 1000 miles, away , at Mach 20, they can strike targets in 4 mins, 2 min at 500 miles The key factor is that B-1Bs with EA-18G jamming can attack both Russia and China defenses from over 500 miles away The current combination of ALQ-99 , AGM-88 and TLAMs gives Russian and China defense both on land and in air ample time to counter attack The EA-18G still has to get close but the high speed of the ARRW reduces the chances of interception by aircraft As for Russia's nuclear torpedo Just more hot air and incredible stupid idea
    2
  3. Advanced tracking systems able to provide accurate and real time information are far more important than building interceptors
    1
  4.  @frankrenda2519  You are very confused Unless Iran's drones do something unsafe towards US ships, they generally don't bother with them As for the S-400, its literally joke compared to the AEGIS, more to point, compared to Western systems
    1
  5.  @wolfmaster0579  Kill chain is what people dont understand
    1