@@JSharap Pulled ahead? The F-22 Raptor was made nearly 20 years ago, and Russian and China are just now getting to that level of technology. Each country has their own doctrine and their own design choices, each one unique and not necessarily better than the others.
@@JSharap Soviet doctrine serves as the basis for Russian doctrine. Russia made relatively few sweeping developments in their military, most of their stuff is modernized Soviet-era or Soviet-pattern equipment.
well done brother, I think at this point the baton has been placed to you for this content. I think my channel has now been forever balcklisted by the platform that is RUclips. Keep it up buddy
Thank you for this video. You clearly explained the pros and cons, and made me understand the US perspective and approach to anti ship missiles. Before I watched, I thought that faster is always better.
Actualy is but because U arent made sudenly isnt but if case will be oposite rest of world will become fully inferiorbut again because Russia is made all those hypersonic missiles sudenly harpoon is much more danger in OZ ask yours admiral and general why they to offten mention how US WASNT have defense against hypersonic weapon, Lets say that 90%of such claims are actuali just onother claim for mor money but 10% said that because NOTORIUS FACT like is that against KINZHAL Their is not suficiant defense by any US ship , make homework then see KINZHAL PATH when he is sand on target
@@kevinavila9489 main point of my comment is that those theory are nothing more then classical US attempt to diminish Russian break true in Hyper sonic missile and they importance making hilarious statement thatarpoon missile is much more better
It's nice to see you were able to get DCS to work properly for you when providing examples of missiles. Now if only DCS would work properly when we need it to !
OMG !! WHAT IS THIS CHANNEL ?!?!? You don't have a robotic voice, and the script for the video isn't coppied whole sale from some 3rd party ! Its like...... I don't even know what to believe anymore.
Shane Rooney........he's sick........me n my friends had a good discussion on ASMs, here on first comment.......but now he pushed those initial comments to the bottom.
I just want to tell the Host of this sight just how appreciated that you are in voicing the information instead of using a computer aided voice. Thank You Very Much.
6:34 Ooh yeah that shade being thrown at those clickbait videos was most amusing and satisfying. I hate how prolific they are and that so many pay attention to them. A most analytical and well explained video as always.
@Thanos Car www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/30/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-is-damaged-when-dock-sinks-crane-punches-huge-hole-in-ship/
Well it isn't a Soviet only idea. It is pretty natural idea, if one is expecting littoral combat. Have bunch of smaller craft with big punch, but shorter endurance. You don't need the endurance, since it isn't meant to go blue ocean sailing. It patrols the home coast carrying the biggest stick one can fit on it and once the sticks are gone, go reload. Stay on patrol couple days, another of the dozen other boats reliefs the boat to go restock and round and round it goes. Actually the USA ship size can be a problem. Some of the big capitals don't even fit to many littoral areas or are a massive sitting duck. Which means USA Navy has to stay more offshore. Which means the use of the air assets.... Which against well prepared opponent will phase a radar and SAM picket lining the coast. Different doctrines for different needs. The ocean size moat is both USA blessing and curse. USA doesn't realistically have to worry about Naval landing... Nobody is going to sneak a surprise landing fleet ocean over. On the other hand USA has massive ships meant for blue ocean, which once in littoral waters stick out like sore thumb and become ASM fodder. At which point it comes competition between the ASM and USA CIWS. Because another key with big ASMs.... One can shore mount them. Many nations employ batteries of shoreline ASM mobile launchers. One comes within few hundred km of the shore with bad intent and one gets a hell of a barrage launched against them from the coast. Supported by thee bee swarm of the missile boats. Most nations of the world have no interest in playing world police, so the big ASM bait of a carrier fleet isn't necessary. Also having tens of small missile boats.... Is the enemy going to waste tens and tens of missiles trying to target each of them.... On top of that the boats are small and nimble, meaning hit is far from certain.
Indeed the missile boats were pretty natural regression from the torpedo boat, don’t really think the Soviets were revolutionary in developing them early or deploying so many. In case you’re not aware the US also had a few ThePegasus class, I think it was a6 or 8 ship class of hydrofoils, and I’m not sure if they had a conventional hull class before the Pegasus.
@@aritakalo8011 Small, numerous littoral boats and land based missiles are exactly the Chinese defense doctrine right now to deny USN access to Chinese shores. It is quite effective for a fraction of the cost of what USN paid for its blue water navy. Plus subs too.
So Covert Cabal has sacrificed number and frequency of videos to get more detail into each one he does. Good job! Can you do a video on the Indo-Pak dogfight this week, were* we're** claiming to have shot down a PAF F-16? I'd love to see things from a neutral standpoint... Edit : during which* Indian Air Force**
Is 0 available real data about what happened between India and Pakistan. It is even not sure the dogfights. Is simply no reason to make a video about nothing. What do you want to know from a "natural standpoint?"
The fact is that you're asserting PAF shot down an Mi17V5 without any proof for that; shows that you're not neutral. PAF shot down a Mig 21 no doubt.. but you've proof for that. Any proof for "shooting down" the Mi17? Even PAF hasn't claimed it. So please...
@@adithyakm9958 India lost a MiG-21 and a Mi-17; there are many of photos of the wrecks. The MiG-21 was shot down, either by pakistani aircraft or SAM (we don't know). It's not sure if the Mi-17 was also shot down or lost in an accident/due to a technical failure.
@@pincopallino6765 Ik that we lost an Mi17 too but it was a crash due to some accident/technical fault.. it wasn't shot down as claimed by some. The crash happened much before PAF intruded into Indian Airspace.
The Harpoon's terminal maneuver is not and never was intended to confuse point defense weapon systems, the pop-up flight profile was used to improve the hull penetration angle thus allowing the warhead to detonate under the waterline (missile will have downward flight profile on impact with a delayed detonation fuse). As a matter of fact the pop-up makes the Harpoon easier to shoot down, early upgrades to the Harpoon allowed the operator to selectively enable/disable the pop-up terminal maneuver to minimize its vulnerability to point defense weapon systems if required. I totally agree with you that why the U.S. Navy doesn't have a more modern ASM ( high speed or not) and even dis-continued the Tomahawk anti-ship variant, because there has been a lack of suitable targets. Russia (and the USSR before it) has a tactical necessity for lots of ASMs to try to counter the US Navy's dominance, but the U.S. Navy really has not had a serious quantitative tactical challenge from surface ships since the fall of the USSR. Like you said, Only recently with China's emergence as a sea going threat does the US Navy need to invest in modernizing their ASM technology; subsequently we're seeing LRASM being developed and the US supporting Norway's NSM program too. Side Note: Why is there no ship named "Slava" in the Russian Slava class cruiser fleet? Answer: The first cruiser built was to be called the Slava, but during pre-commission weapons testing there was a miss-fire. For some reason when they attempted to launch 1 of their ASMs all 8 missiles on that side of the ship launched simultaneously, the combined exhaust caused a massive fire, which destroyed the ship. Another Side Note: Why did the USSR Mod-Kashin destroyers have Styx missiles aimed astern, but the Kashins built for the Royal Indian Navy had the Styx missiles orient to launch forward? Answer: The Soviets wanted to fire the Styx missiles at U.S. carriers while running away at high speed (self preservation???), while the Indian navy was less intimidated by their potential enemy (Pakistan), and wanted to attack while approaching.
Where did you hear about the Slava incident? Slava cruiser is still in service and has been renamed to "Moskva" after the fall of Soviet Union as have all ex-Soviet ships that were kept in service at the time... She is only now being either upgraded or retired because she is an old girl - as the lead ship of the Project 1164 Atlant class, she was built between 1976 and 1979.
@@SerbianSabre1 Sorry I made a mistake, there was another ship of this class, the "Krasina" that suffered the damage I described. NATO had named the class after that initial unit and had to rename it to "Slava" after the fire damage destroyed the Krasina. I heard this sea-story when I was serving in the US Navy 1980-86 as the reason the class was renamed after, several books (i.e Jane's & USNI Ships of the Soviet Navy) had already been published with the earlier name, I wish I still had my copy of the USNI reference book. We also had an interesting story about why the Kiev class carriers had those little walls added between the forecastle and the flight deck...
@Roughman Navy lingo for "urban legend" is "sea story" to which I already alluded, as a proud sailor I can tell you it is most definitely not an "army" anything...LOL Ship classes are not subject to NATO nicknames like other weapon systems (i.e. Fishbed, Farmer, Foxbat, for fighters or Styx, & Sandbox, for ASMs,; note NATO nickname conventions are first letter based so that all fighters begin with a "F", bombers begin with a "B", cargo aircraft begin with a "C" {jet aircraft would get 2 syllable names while proppellor driven aircraft have only 1 syllable names}, anti surface missiles begin with a "S", anti aircraft missiles begin with a "G") ship classes are named after the first ship of that type/class (i.e. Spruance or Arliegh Burke class ships of the U.S. Navy, or Krivak, Kynda, Kirov classes of the USSR) and even the Soviets never tried to keep a ship's name classified or hidden. There is no other USSR ship class that has a NATO generated name that does not match the Soviet's name of the initial ship of that class. While I'll freely admit this may have been a sea story there was some compelling evidence when I served in the Navy, as the USSR was pretty careless with their ordnance, while Severomorsk is public knowledge (largely because at even dozens of miles from Norway the fire and blasts were visible to the Norwegians) there were other depots and ships that had major issues that were kept from public knowledge, check out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severomorsk_Disaster
While the Harpoon may not maneuver for self preservation, commercials for new anti ship missiles say their missiles do. The Harpoon family might be adjusted to be able to do the same. The problem with China's navy is based on quantity so anti-ship missiles take up space for more effective weapons. China claims to have 200,000 deep water fishing vessels which could easily reach Japan and Taiwan. Stick 20 soldiers on each one and that's a landing force of 4 million men. In Japan and Taiwan, the population isn't armed so such numbers can be devastating with just 2 million men.
The US Navy proved that supersonic missiles were easier to shoot down than subsonic targets in 1973 Rimpac exercises. Supersonic missiles were not as maneuverable at those speeds and were easier to track by targeting radar. It is also important to mention that because the US uses carriers, the aircraft aboard them can also be used to intercept and destroy incoming missiles so the fleet does not have to rely solely on shipboard missile defense.
Ron Rowan, yes, and the F-35 is a very capable sensor platform for situational awareness. (Spotting for airborne and space-based lasers and particle beam weapons...sshhh....)
Marcus O'Hara, supersonic missiles are defeated in their high-speed and erratic flight paths using airborne sensor platforms, e.g. F-35, spotting for airborne and space-based lasers and particle beam defensive weapons. (What?! The military only has what they tell us they have?! LOL)
layered missile defenses do nothing........a subsonic Sea skimming missile isn't visible till it clears radar horizon, then think about supersonic and hypersonic ones.........speed gives you very less time to act........let's say if you detected a supersonic Sea skimming missile at 15km.........such missiles cover 15km in less than 30 sec.......do u know what's the operator response time in case if a missile is detected?? You need minimum 40-50 sec to respond (launch preparation)..........and air defenses are designed to shoot mainly aircarft and drone sized targets........a cruise missile has a RCS of less than 0.5 and hence hard to detect at longer ranges........this isn't ballistic missile where the trajectory is predictable and easy to shoot
I quite like that part where you talk about compromise of speed, range, size, and altitude. Engineering is always full of such compromises, not just in missiles, but virtually all designs. I'm assuming the reason that missiles that wish to be supersonic, long range and low flying need to be large is in order to carry more fuel and more powerful jet engines. I wonder if it would be possible to build a missile that flies at subsonic speeds up to the point where they cross the horizon to save on fuel and thus size, and only accelerate to supersonic speed when they detect the target ship's radars, which would indicate they crossed the target's radar horizon. Now, I don't actually know how that would be done. But fighter jets like the F-15 switch between sub and supersonic speed by activating afterburners. By throwing extra fuel into the exhaust of the jet engine, you could increase thrust without needing more air to be fed into the jet engines. So maybe that could work for a missile? I don't know. I'm obviously not a weapons designer so maybe some already thought of that and said "forget it. Too complex." Still, fun to think about. EDIT: Nevermind. That got brought up at the very end of the video. That's what I get for posting 80% of the way through. Oops.
Russia has developed the 3M-54 Kalibr, which flies at subsonic speed, then accelerated to supersonic speed in its terminal phase. Though not all variant have supersonic capability, the subsonic-only variant has a much greater range. And not all variant is anti-ship, it's basically like the Tomahawk, where it have land-attack and anti-ship variant.
Believe it or not, i had a similar idea. why not develope 2 stage missiles, one cruise stage that carries the weapon at subsonic speed and than actuating the second stage with a faster burning solid propellant (therefor generating more thrust) when closing up ...... and than at the last minutes, the narrator of this video mentioned this exact idea, i guess that such ideas find a lot of minds to grow in XD.
@@mandernachluca3774 cruise missiles are air breathing engines, what's the point if you use solid booster?? It'll be a rocket motor which can't maneuver well due to high Mach speeds......and flying low at such speeds destroys the missile....... not suitable for antiship role.......while in supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles, they use second stage liquid ramjet or scramjet to boost its speeds
The USA navy rail gun program has been canceled. Check it out! Russia already has a high energy weapon (laser) in service with it's military. It is called Peresvet high-energy laser weapon. You can check it out for yourself.
@tankapples Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russian weapon systems compete with our systems in worldwide sales. Russia and the USA are the worlds exporters of weapons. We even buy Russian weapons. The USA Police forces have purchased millions of dollars worth of the new AK shot gun. Look at VEPR 12 and the Saiga 12, both russian made. Russia also makes the fastest fighter aircraft in the world, radar systems, and fastest rockets on the planet. We even use Russians to ferry us back and forth to the space station, and we buy the Russian made RD-180 rocket engine. Don't believe what you see in the movies, or on the MSM news.
YOU STRAIGHT JACKET JACKASS. THE U.S. HAS THE BEST WEAPONS IN THE WORLD. U. S. SPENDS 700 BILLION DOLLARS ON MILITARY COMPARED TO RUSSIAS 75 BILLION. WHAT DOES THAT TELL U.
@@theultimatemale6820 I always read capital letters as if someone is screaming. I think most people do. Even if I am obviously just having a casual conversation with someone whose caps lock is broken, I can't help but to read it that way. I even read your "DIDN'T SCREAM" as if you were screaming.
I was an electronic warfare technician in the US Navy i got out in 1995 I was an EW2. They've merged that rate with the CTs in 2003. I was stationed on frigate FF-1074 In Desert Storm. One of the biggest threats were mines in the Persian gulf. They didn't have much of a naval threat. When the Soviet Union broke up they sold a shit ton of weapons. Air and land based ASMs were out there The ship's survivability depends on how proficient the people sitting at the electronic warfare console are at their job. You don't have a lot of time to identify a threat and take appropriate action. I'm assuming the electronic warfare equipment has evolved significantly since I was in, but so have the weapons. I was also stationed on a Spruance class DD-980 when it was coverted to a strike destroyer when the removed the ASROC launcher and installed the VLS for the Tomahawk. On deployment we had the SH-60 Seahawk with the LAMPS system it extended our ESM capabilities. It had Harpoon launchers, CIWS, and 2 5 inch guns. When the EW operator detects a threat we had to take a few factors into consideration the threat itself and its capabilities, wind speed, and the firing arcs of our CWIS and guns, and recommend a course and speed for maximum effectiveness of chaff and flares that also stays within the CWIS firing arc while also trying to give the threat the smallest profile for its targeting system. I would assume that's calculated by a computer now but when i was in the Navy we had to do it by hand. A typical one on one scenario with a hostile ship would be the ESM gear detects a long range search radar by analyzing the singal characteristics, then you may also detect their navigation radar. That should be enough information to determine the type of ship. When you know the class of ship then you know what type of missiles and guns it is carrying. You inform the operations officer and he asks the radar operators if they have anything at the bearing then this information is relayed to the captain. If your ship's search radar detects them then they already know you are there because the ESM detection range of a radar is further than its operating range. The next thing your ESM gear would see is a fire control radar in it's search mode so you inform the operations officer and relays the information to the captain. So you make you calculations for course and speed. If the fire control radar locks on to you it's a very distictive sounnd. If they launch a missile depending on the type if it is radar guided you would detect its search mode then it may lock on you. While that is happening you are informing operations officer and its chaff and/or flare launching time. If your ESM gear is capable of jamming depending on the type of radar the missle has there are different jamming techniques. If the missle is capable of "home on jam" then obviously you don't want to engage it. You have to hope that your chaff and flares offer a better target or your point defence handles the missle. To be honest the supersonic and hypersonic missles scare the shit out of me. The video makes good points about the time and altitude that the faster missles take however the slower the missle, the easier it is for your point defence to track target and destroy the threat.
Thank you. I have not seen a break down this detailed and intelligent since the old Airpower Australia break downs of air doctrine that was also easy to access without a lot of technical background. He stopped updating years ago and I have missed it. There are a few others but this was really quite good. I was wondering if you would mention the difference in naval philosophy and the new missiles that are in development and you did. Subscribed.
This was quality content. I'm not a huge military or tactical nerd, but I like the clear concise, and high quality visuals. Thank you, earned a sub from me!
This is quite an objective video on the subject. But I think Covert Cabal missed, or better to say, didn't emphasise enough, one huge drawback of supersonic missiles, and that is their IR signature. When a supersonic missile flies at high speeds it literally glows in the dark, meaning some of the US satellites are able to detect them, satellites like SBIRS. And that's a long detection range, you can prepare pretty well when you see a missile coming and track it from 500 km or more..
And, if you can track a missile's course, you may likely find the launch source as well. Modern warfare is a constant and intricate balancing act between measures and countermeasures. Your observation is spot-on.
Swarm at high speed....Who cares if you can see the barrel of a shotgun, if you can't do stop the shot? The future of disabling naval assets is in swarming defenses, and I think these supersonic missiles will be the vehicle.
The thing about shotguns? They have to be fired from close range. The same applies to a swarm of missiles ... unless you put them all in a giant air/sea truck. Big trucks=big targets.
@@chooseymomschoose Why do you think hypersonic missile swarm would need to fired close range? In the battle of Stalingrad, t-34 were being driven right off the factory line, by untrained civilians and no ammo, and they swarmed and defeated the Nazi advance because the Nazis ran out of ammo. I think a few thousand rockets fired in a way that they all would strike at nearly the same time.
@@PowderLlamma A simultaneous missile strike would indeed overwhelm almost any ship alone, although US fleet defenses are multilayered. Anything from extreme distance would first be intercepted by fighters, then missile defense, then CWIS systems. It is also likely that Russia does not have the ability to launch enough of said rockets, especially with reliability.
You know what guy, never heard of you before but it's not a damn computer voice and this video was so much more researched than most of the military videos I see on YT. Hell of a job. SUBSCRIBED.
@@jamesporter6288 They don't have supersonic anti ship missiles. It's not a secret and there's no reason to keep it a secret. Half of the reason for having these weapons is so everyone knows you have them and you don't have to use them.
@@fuckjewtube69 That's not true. You want them to know you have weapons yea, but not to know the exact details or anything about them. Any information of a weapon can be used against it.
Great video! You should do a piece on evolved ATGM capabilities/systems/tactics and how they’ve forced an evolution in armored systems and tactics. A comparison of the latest MANPADS systems and capabilities (like the new Stinger bloc) would also be really interesting!
Short answer we developed them in 1973. It was a violation of an arms treaty that expired earlier this year. We purchased a butt ton of them. Oh FYI they are hyper sonice ASMs. They use scram jets.
Not at all, it's a barrier that determines critical design factors of missiles, planes etc; heck even transonic speeds create greater stresses. Imagine saying what you saif to the scientists, engineers and pilots that were involved in achieving supersonic flight and then making it operational in militaries. That development eventually made it *necessary* for Anti Air missiles to be supersonic, the ability to close with ships at speeds significantly above Mach .8 is ideal.
You forgot to mention that two years ago when Russia launched a bunch of their new Kalibr missiles at anti government forces in Syria, the missiles flew over parts of Iran and a bunch of them malfunctioned and crashed in Iran. There are pictures of the multiple wreckages. Iran gave them permission to use their airspace and then had missiles falling out of the sky on them. The problem with Russian equipment is they will say something is amazing but then when it’s used it doesn’t work as advertised. It’s even worse with the Chinese. They lost 110 submariners when their engines killed them. They sell helicopters that crash. Antiaircraft guns that when newly assembled and tested killed it’s Indonesian crew.
@Rev limits Lmao! The US is only as powerful as the world allows it to be. The only reason Europe goes along with you is because they fear Russia. If it weren't for Russia, your barbaric state would have long been blockaded and sanctioned.
Excellent analysis. Low altitude missiles such as the Harpoon also have an advantage due to sea clutter. It is very difficult for radar systems to discriminate (identify and lock onto) missiles flying low over the water because the sea waves create reflections that hide the missile. A major advantage for the Harpoon.
I hate to "age" myself, but during the segment of the "Cold War" Navy, is a short segment of the Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier, USS Franklin D Roosevelt, CVA 42. Although "The Rosie" was at various times designated a CV, CVA and CVB; for most of her times she was designated a CVA (Carrier Vessel Attack). The CV's had several different functions at different times, in addition to CVA, there was CVB (Carrier Vessel Battle), CVS (Carrier Vessel Submarine). I was attached to the A Division (Legal, now known as JAG). Great duty and awesome Port's of Call!!!
If a subsonic missile is sea skimming at about 30ft (5-6m), is it possible to detect it from AWACS?? Cuz when awacs looks down it will have to detect missile against background ocean clutter.........and is it possible for the awacs to guide ship board airdefenses to intercept antiship missiles (ASM).........I mean intercepting an ASM with only AWACS
@@forfun5238 I just work for a subcontractor to design a few of the Aluminum boxes of electronics that go into the missile. Sometimes the prime contractor will send a propaganda film the subcontractor, but those could be found on youtube by now.
The USA has a diferent military doctrine from other countries for two reasons. It has an unlimited military budget. It is also the only offensive military on the planet. Offensive operations neeed diferent equipment from defending.
Whether you view the USA military as offensive or expeditionary would depend on whether you believe it has primarily been deployed for the interests of the American people or elite moneyed interests. North Korea could in no way be considered either offensive or expeditionary. It totally lacks any mobility for its massive army other than boots. It also lacks any weaponry for controlling the airspace. Limited to. Attacking bordering countries, there is no country in the world it could attack. Though it’s artillery and massive army would be a formidable force against an invader.
To be an expeditionary military Force would require being able to transport enough troops and equipment to successfully wage war with a non bordering country. The USA is the only country with that ability. At best those other countries can make a small contribution to a conflict. Russia is stretching its capabilities with the conflict in Syria. China’s force projection is limited to the South China Sea.
@@klardfarkus3891 Nice delusions, lol! USA was created by multiple expeditionary military forces remember? And back then they used wooden ships and sails? What year do you live in? Yea educated will notice a number of the annual US Defense Budget. Word unlimited isn't even in any of those? Entire USAF is weak to very weak at best. Let's stick to the facts?
ALPHA OMEGA I wrote best friends, they sell them weapons for billions of $, russians dont do that, I don't defend them, they have their own games but when in comes to weapons america is still the main world dealer... just watch what they will do to turkey when they buy s400... not because they hate erdogan, but because they dont want russians to be close to their equipment they sold to him already...
The real question to me is why did we take the cannons off our ships? I have absolute confidence in our ground and air forces but our navy hasn’t seen a naval battle since ww2 70+ years ago, only rockets on the ships seem like a bad idea.
Guns are still on ships they just became smaller. Ships will never shoot down all the missiles, by the time they close to gun range (if they ever do) it will only be to finish off the loser, as has repeatedly happened in modern missile combat.
Americans have designed and threw away plans for hypersonic ASCMs . ASALM (Wikipedia it. It was cool) for one. At Mach 4.5, less than 30 ft off the waves, the poor ship has no chance. I think it was Carter that shot that one down. Reagan didn't revive it. Tested on a target ship (without a warhead) it gutted and sank it on kinetic energy alone. "Sir, incoming missile at 20 miles, bearing 175, spe....BOOOM!!" That would be all the warning you would get. I'm glad such systems don't exist by USA enemies. Because I know USA has drones that will out preform them. War isn't a childhood game. And some tech should shelved. Hopefully forever.
Starpangle I looked on RUclips but can't find a reference to it. However, if you Wiki; Asalm missile, it will take you to the page about it. It weighed 2700 lbs at launch. It cruised at Mach 4.5. A 2000 lb thing hitting another thing at 4.5 times the speed of sound will break it in half. It also had the option of a nuke warhead. As I said, this is one of those things I'm glad we didn't fund. Martin Marietta came up with some crazy ideas. Copperhead, Hell Fire, Patriot, Pershing 2, Asalm. Some were purchased. Others weren't.
The US does have Mach 2-3.5 anti ship missiles. The SM2/3/6/ESSM missiles were originally built as anti air missiles ( used against other missiles, aircraft), and have now been updated so you can choose anti air or anti ship functions. The only issue is they have smaller warheads than dedicated anti ship missiles. Still, if you have run out of harpoons ( why ships only carry 8 I have no idea), and have 60 ESSMs, and the enemy is 50km away, you have other weapons to use now.
Small correction: Harpoon is not vertically launched; it's fired from two four-tube rack-type launchers on the fantail of both the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the remaining Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
Thats why turkey also developed the atamca subsonic antiship missle which can be mounted on all ships aircraft they have and especially the large fleet of small drones.
Searching for "South Asian Sea" sent me to South China Sea, so it's clear that English speakers generally equate the two. Besides, half the bodies of water out there have contested names, because they all still hate each other.
@@CTOInformation _"bomb China"_ ...Why? I think it's more interesting to watch a house of cards eventually teeter and collapse on its own. At this point, we're playing political science Jenga and China is left with a swaying tower and its their turn. I wanna watch this shit, not knock it over.
No mention of the french Exocet missile? Can be launched from a submarine, a plane or a ship and has been tested sucessfully in combat against the british during the Falklands conflict. You should have talked about it, since it's been a reference in naval warfare for 40 years.
Why? The US Navy does not use it, and the only other missiles mentioned are supersonic or they are new missile designs. There was really no reason to bring the Exocet into the discussion.
@@eddieguyvh4765 It's because they are NEW. The idea is explaining why the USN has stayed with Harpoon for so long and why the next gen AShM for them will also be subsonic while some other navies are building supersonic missiles, but there is no reason to mention another subsonic AShM with almost identical performance and that is just as old (and heavily upgraded) as the Harpoon
Excellent video. There is another aspect of this, between satellites, combat air patrols, and AWACs the US Navy can pinpoint and attack enemy missile ships accurately at long range, which is much harder for other Navies to do. Moreover, at least according to to an old Navy buddy who is a fire control officer, several of our long range missiles can be directed in flight by fighter planes or AWACs. This is an advantage with long range missiles, because most missiles go to a designated target area (where the people launching it thinks the enemy will be) and then lock on radar. But if the target makes a radical course change, they could be fifty or more miles from the target area by the time the missiles get there. With our superior tracking ability, we can spot such a course change in real time and update the missile in flight, as well as detecting enemy launches at far greater range. With short range missiles this is less helpful as the ship won't have time to get away, but with some missiles having ranges over 2,000 km, you could have an hour or more. So it the enemy sees you steaming north at 20 knots, the target area will be 20 nautical miles north. But warned of the launch the ships could reverse course at flank speed and be far away before the missile gets there. Also, the stealthy F-35 can carry anti-ship missiles and launch them at close range, so that will be an advantage once they are fully deployed to the fleet. Now if China comes up with a truly credible naval air arm, we will need to do some re-thinking.
They already are and have been. The rethinking should have already been done that time has come and is long past. And to me, it does not look like the rethinking has been done. This is currently one of the biggest reasons why I have lost faith in the military leadership, I really dont know what the hell they have been doing but it seems to me either politicians have been holding them nack or they have been sitting their with their thumb up their ass since 2012 watching china gain on us. Maybe you can offer some evidence to the contrary?
@@cameronspence4977 What evidence do you have that we are not updating technologies and tactics for China? And they still don't have a very credible Navy. Here's a hint - the US military doesn't give out its secrets to satisfy your curiosity. And while we do have hypersonic missiles (not in deployment yet) are they the best answer for our fleet? Yeah, China is a rich country developing new capabilities. What's new about that? My big worry is that Trump might have given/sold them information on what our military is doing to counter that. Here's the only example I personally know of. In the eighties Soviet passive sonar was getting better - making our subs more vulnerable. A new technology was developed that allowed our subs to maneuver at reasonable speeds while remaining nearly as quiet as if they were not moving at all. Nobody in the outside world knew anything about this - for all I know, they still don't, which is why I cannot hint at how this was done.
Great videos. I wonder how effective the wests defences really are. The falklands war was a wakeup call. The Exocet apparently is not even top of its class now or then. I guess perhaps lessons have been learned? I wonder what your thoughts are?
Joshua Worman what if i tell you , a country couldn't simply deploy a ASM platform in a day, US warships have no room for a new missile you need a new design and by that time US already lost its navy
In my dumb theory, if we had supersonic anti-ship missiles, Russian defenses wouldn't be able to respond to them. 5:50-the Russian’Harpoon-ski’ 8:11-In the 90s, there was to be a Flight 3 Burke class which will have 122 vice 90/96-cell VLS. 14:04-"Was that a Spruance-class destroyer? Didn't we decommission them all?
It's a possibility. Russian fire control may or may not have been able to keep up with the speed. Hard to tell. Well Ticos have that many, plus they've got admiral room so no big loss. That does look like a Spruance, it could be an older video but I think the USN actually has kept a Spruance in service as a test ship.
Dude this videos is solid! Thank you for breaking this down in a logical way. I was wondering why the US didn’t have a hypersonic missile and why we didn’t seem concerned about other nations having them. This video explains a lot thank you again great job!
Exactly what I was thinking. A missile travelling at mach 7 doesnt *need* to manoeuvre very much to radically change the volume of space it is flying through. It is such an insane speed that hitting it with point defences would be an absolute nightmare. Still, its all theorycraft unless things turn hot. Should probably add though, that Russia S400 etc anti-air missiles are widely recognised as the best in the world, so hard to discount their philosophy as simple "moar speed gud" when it comes to ship killers. I'm sure they have thought it through long and hard, since US navies are a major part of the US capacity for force projection.
@@TheMastaRob Thank you, and I agree with you. Also I really dont think Russia, China or the USA would have a conventional war for very long if and God forbid a war actually started between the 2 or 3 of them. Im imagining the nukes would start flying the minute one side felt they were going to lose and then everyone would launch whatever they have, from nuclear to biological to something we dont even no about yet. I do feel we the USA will eventually come across these missles but it will be after Russia or China gives them to another smaller country such as Iran. Hell if I know, I only have a doctorate in Dumbassery not missles.
@@jasonsmizer5431 Go enlist with your 'luck'? US may be helpless and defenseless against hypersonic weapons. Meanwhile during ASD15 we just simply shot down any and all hypersonic weapons in the air and in space at the same time. 100% hit ratio again and again and again cos ... lucky right? ;-) @Masta is right. Stop the theorycraft and go do a live fire exercise and see if you can hit them all.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
He mentioned the doctrinal differences between US and Soviet navies. This military nerd is pleased.
helo, col center?
Soviet no longer exist so the US doctrine is outdated. Meanwhile Russia n China had pulled ahead of US military tech by 20 years.
@@leapdrive oooo mushrooms
@@JSharap Pulled ahead? The F-22 Raptor was made nearly 20 years ago, and Russian and China are just now getting to that level of technology. Each country has their own doctrine and their own design choices, each one unique and not necessarily better than the others.
@@JSharap Soviet doctrine serves as the basis for Russian doctrine. Russia made relatively few sweeping developments in their military, most of their stuff is modernized Soviet-era or Soviet-pattern equipment.
What? No robot voice?! You're breaking the norm for military videos.
ChipLeader thank God for that
What about matsimus
I normally like your videos, but this one is shit. Us operates obsolete garbage, and that's a fact
lmfao
@@alexp-ru someone's mad for.. reasons?
Thank you for a human voice and actual valuable information about the different weapon systems and military doctrine.
Preach it brother. Those fuckin robot voices are annoying and mispronounce shit all the time
@@chrisa8799 Lmaoooo
Yes, yes... we approve
@@chrisa8799 I agee Chris. Thanks.
@@beandiesel974 😁
well done brother, I think at this point the baton has been placed to you for this content. I think my channel has now been forever balcklisted by the platform that is RUclips. Keep it up buddy
We all stand on the shoulders of giants
Matsimus has some great tastes.
That’s unfortunate, your content was very good too.
Thank you for this video. You clearly explained the pros and cons, and made me understand the US perspective and approach to anti ship missiles. Before I watched, I thought that faster is always better.
Actualy is but because U arent made sudenly isnt but if case will be oposite rest of world will become fully inferiorbut again because Russia is made all those hypersonic missiles sudenly harpoon is much more danger in OZ ask yours admiral and general why they to offten mention how US WASNT have defense against hypersonic weapon, Lets say that 90%of such claims are actuali just onother claim for mor money but 10% said that because NOTORIUS FACT like is that against KINZHAL Their is not suficiant defense by any US ship , make homework then see KINZHAL PATH when he is sand on target
@@runxxeroxx sorry but i have a very hard time digesting what you said. i can barely understand it.
@@kevinavila9489 main point of my comment is that those theory are nothing more then classical US attempt to diminish Russian break true in Hyper sonic missile and they importance making hilarious statement thatarpoon missile is much more better
He made a mistake though he considered distance as time not distance by speed. Faster modules are hard to hit.
It's nice to see you were able to get DCS to work properly for you when providing examples of missiles. Now if only DCS would work properly when we need it to !
Wow this is narrated by an actual human!
It is not the only one, to be fair ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuw
Propaganda machinery doesn't include only text to speech.
OMG !! WHAT IS THIS CHANNEL ?!?!?
You don't have a robotic voice, and the script for the video isn't coppied whole sale from some 3rd party !
Its like...... I don't even know what to believe anymore.
That but the background music is a little over dramatic.
fake news...we all agree the world is flat
@@D64nz its probably hard to find a fitting background piece thats both royalty free and long enough for a 17 minute video
Time to copy. Give me a few days to transcribe this video. *sarcasm*
Shane Rooney........he's sick........me n my friends had a good discussion on ASMs, here on first comment.......but now he pushed those initial comments to the bottom.
Great video! So refreshing to see military videos that are actually well researched
Well What ? Rofl.
I just want to tell the Host of this sight just how appreciated that you are in voicing the information instead of using a computer aided voice. Thank You Very Much.
And thank him for not having an impossible accent or speech impediment?
Those are just wikipedia articles
6:34 Ooh yeah that shade being thrown at those clickbait videos was most amusing and satisfying. I hate how prolific they are and that so many pay attention to them.
A most analytical and well explained video as always.
I dont know this youtuber and he doesnt have that many subs, but this video is surprisingly good
I feel like he got tired of them too and made this channel
Defense updates is also really good. No computer voice either
This is much better than those click bait videos that seem to just stir shit in the comment sections
@@WiscoMTB37 LOL Defense updates is the very kinda armature comp voice trash he is bashing.
These are seriously the most informative and interesting military analyst videos out there. The best ones out there.
So do flat earthers prefer super sonic ASM's?
They prefer licking windows
@@nameatrandom9234 Agree
@Guilford News Network Russia doesn't even have a single carrier group. Good luck with trying to project power haha
@Thanos Car What carrier? Their one and only carrier was just sunk, by a fucking crane at the dock!!!!!! LMAO
@Thanos Car www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/10/30/russias-only-aircraft-carrier-is-damaged-when-dock-sinks-crane-punches-huge-hole-in-ship/
Soviet missile boats seem like the natural progression of small torpedo boats
Well it isn't a Soviet only idea. It is pretty natural idea, if one is expecting littoral combat. Have bunch of smaller craft with big punch, but shorter endurance. You don't need the endurance, since it isn't meant to go blue ocean sailing.
It patrols the home coast carrying the biggest stick one can fit on it and once the sticks are gone, go reload. Stay on patrol couple days, another of the dozen other boats reliefs the boat to go restock and round and round it goes.
Actually the USA ship size can be a problem. Some of the big capitals don't even fit to many littoral areas or are a massive sitting duck. Which means USA Navy has to stay more offshore. Which means the use of the air assets.... Which against well prepared opponent will phase a radar and SAM picket lining the coast.
Different doctrines for different needs. The ocean size moat is both USA blessing and curse. USA doesn't realistically have to worry about Naval landing... Nobody is going to sneak a surprise landing fleet ocean over. On the other hand USA has massive ships meant for blue ocean, which once in littoral waters stick out like sore thumb and become ASM fodder. At which point it comes competition between the ASM and USA CIWS. Because another key with big ASMs.... One can shore mount them. Many nations employ batteries of shoreline ASM mobile launchers. One comes within few hundred km of the shore with bad intent and one gets a hell of a barrage launched against them from the coast. Supported by thee bee swarm of the missile boats.
Most nations of the world have no interest in playing world police, so the big ASM bait of a carrier fleet isn't necessary.
Also having tens of small missile boats.... Is the enemy going to waste tens and tens of missiles trying to target each of them.... On top of that the boats are small and nimble, meaning hit is far from certain.
Indeed the missile boats were pretty natural regression from the torpedo boat, don’t really think the Soviets were revolutionary in developing them early or deploying so many.
In case you’re not aware the US also had a few ThePegasus class, I think it was a6 or 8 ship class of hydrofoils, and I’m not sure if they had a conventional hull class before the Pegasus.
It reminds me of the original "street fighter" concept that eventually lead to the LCS class.
@@aritakalo8011 Small, numerous littoral boats and land based missiles are exactly the Chinese defense doctrine right now to deny USN access to Chinese shores. It is quite effective for a fraction of the cost of what USN paid for its blue water navy. Plus subs too.
My favorite torpedo boat in War Thunder is the G-5 lol
Narrator: “Because the earth is not flat”
Flat Earthers: *crying noises*
hahaha
Hahaha
Hahaha
yes, they make poor missile designers...
Why
So Covert Cabal has sacrificed number and frequency of videos to get more detail into each one he does. Good job!
Can you do a video on the Indo-Pak dogfight this week, were* we're** claiming to have shot down a PAF F-16? I'd love to see things from a neutral standpoint...
Edit : during which*
Indian Air Force**
Is 0 available real data about what happened between India and Pakistan. It is even not sure the dogfights. Is simply no reason to make a video about nothing. What do you want to know from a "natural standpoint?"
@Sultan Ali yeah, and a mig 21 taking down an f/16 AHAHA unlikely
The fact is that you're asserting PAF shot down an Mi17V5 without any proof for that; shows that you're not neutral.
PAF shot down a Mig 21 no doubt.. but you've proof for that.
Any proof for "shooting down" the Mi17? Even PAF hasn't claimed it.
So please...
@@adithyakm9958 India lost a MiG-21 and a Mi-17; there are many of photos of the wrecks.
The MiG-21 was shot down, either by pakistani aircraft or SAM (we don't know).
It's not sure if the Mi-17 was also shot down or lost in an accident/due to a technical failure.
@@pincopallino6765 Ik that we lost an Mi17 too but it was a crash due to some accident/technical fault.. it wasn't shot down as claimed by some.
The crash happened much before PAF intruded into Indian Airspace.
The Harpoon's terminal maneuver is not and never was intended to confuse point defense weapon systems, the pop-up flight profile was used to improve the hull penetration angle thus allowing the warhead to detonate under the waterline (missile will have downward flight profile on impact with a delayed detonation fuse). As a matter of fact the pop-up makes the Harpoon easier to shoot down, early upgrades to the Harpoon allowed the operator to selectively enable/disable the pop-up terminal maneuver to minimize its vulnerability to point defense weapon systems if required.
I totally agree with you that why the U.S. Navy doesn't have a more modern ASM ( high speed or not) and even dis-continued the Tomahawk anti-ship variant, because there has been a lack of suitable targets. Russia (and the USSR before it) has a tactical necessity for lots of ASMs to try to counter the US Navy's dominance, but the U.S. Navy really has not had a serious quantitative tactical challenge from surface ships since the fall of the USSR. Like you said, Only recently with China's emergence as a sea going threat does the US Navy need to invest in modernizing their ASM technology; subsequently we're seeing LRASM being developed and the US supporting Norway's NSM program too.
Side Note: Why is there no ship named "Slava" in the Russian Slava class cruiser fleet? Answer: The first cruiser built was to be called the Slava, but during pre-commission weapons testing there was a miss-fire. For some reason when they attempted to launch 1 of their ASMs all 8 missiles on that side of the ship launched simultaneously, the combined exhaust caused a massive fire, which destroyed the ship.
Another Side Note: Why did the USSR Mod-Kashin destroyers have Styx missiles aimed astern, but the Kashins built for the Royal Indian Navy had the Styx missiles orient to launch forward? Answer: The Soviets wanted to fire the Styx missiles at U.S. carriers while running away at high speed (self preservation???), while the Indian navy was less intimidated by their potential enemy (Pakistan), and wanted to attack while approaching.
Where did you hear about the Slava incident? Slava cruiser is still in service and has been renamed to "Moskva" after the fall of Soviet Union as have all ex-Soviet ships that were kept in service at the time... She is only now being either upgraded or retired because she is an old girl - as the lead ship of the Project 1164 Atlant class, she was built between 1976 and 1979.
TFW the mere exhaust from your anti-ship missiles sinks a ship.
@@SerbianSabre1 Sorry I made a mistake, there was another ship of this class, the "Krasina" that suffered the damage I described. NATO had named the class after that initial unit and had to rename it to "Slava" after the fire damage destroyed the Krasina. I heard this sea-story when I was serving in the US Navy 1980-86 as the reason the class was renamed after, several books (i.e Jane's & USNI Ships of the Soviet Navy) had already been published with the earlier name, I wish I still had my copy of the USNI reference book. We also had an interesting story about why the Kiev class carriers had those little walls added between the forecastle and the flight deck...
@Roughman Navy lingo for "urban legend" is "sea story" to which I already alluded, as a proud sailor I can tell you it is most definitely not an "army" anything...LOL
Ship classes are not subject to NATO nicknames like other weapon systems (i.e. Fishbed, Farmer, Foxbat, for fighters or Styx, & Sandbox, for ASMs,; note NATO nickname conventions are first letter based so that all fighters begin with a "F", bombers begin with a "B", cargo aircraft begin with a "C" {jet aircraft would get 2 syllable names while proppellor driven aircraft have only 1 syllable names}, anti surface missiles begin with a "S", anti aircraft missiles begin with a "G") ship classes are named after the first ship of that type/class (i.e. Spruance or Arliegh Burke class ships of the U.S. Navy, or Krivak, Kynda, Kirov classes of the USSR) and even the Soviets never tried to keep a ship's name classified or hidden. There is no other USSR ship class that has a NATO generated name that does not match the Soviet's name of the initial ship of that class.
While I'll freely admit this may have been a sea story there was some compelling evidence when I served in the Navy, as the USSR was pretty careless with their ordnance, while Severomorsk is public knowledge (largely because at even dozens of miles from Norway the fire and blasts were visible to the Norwegians) there were other depots and ships that had major issues that were kept from public knowledge, check out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severomorsk_Disaster
While the Harpoon may not maneuver for self preservation, commercials for new anti ship missiles say their missiles do. The Harpoon family might be adjusted to be able to do the same.
The problem with China's navy is based on quantity so anti-ship missiles take up space for more effective weapons. China claims to have 200,000 deep water fishing vessels which could easily reach Japan and Taiwan. Stick 20 soldiers on each one and that's a landing force of 4 million men. In Japan and Taiwan, the population isn't armed so such numbers can be devastating with just 2 million men.
493 flat Earth society members disliked.
yup as soon a that Radius part came up they dis-liked and went back to they're hole.
Rick Dufour
*Their* hole...
Too funny.
Hahahaha
Haha I was about to be like "the Earth is not flat! WTH where have I been all these years!"
17 minutes...this a treat
This is the most informative video concerning anti-ship missiles that I have ever seen.
Thank you for not using robot voice. Remember, if you think hiring a human narrator is too expensive.. I will volunteer for a 12 pack of beer.
1:52 immediately check for flat earth comments; was not disappointed.
The US Navy proved that supersonic missiles were easier to shoot down than subsonic targets in 1973 Rimpac exercises. Supersonic missiles were not as maneuverable at those speeds and were easier to track by targeting radar. It is also important to mention that because the US uses carriers, the aircraft aboard them can also be used to intercept and destroy incoming missiles so the fleet does not have to rely solely on shipboard missile defense.
How do the aircraft intercept incoming supersonic anti ship missiles?
@@bigyokes4747 Air to air xxxsonic missiles
Ron Rowan, yes, and the F-35 is a very capable sensor platform for situational awareness. (Spotting for airborne and space-based lasers and particle beam weapons...sshhh....)
Marcus O'Hara, supersonic missiles are defeated in their high-speed and erratic flight paths using airborne sensor platforms, e.g. F-35, spotting for airborne and space-based lasers and particle beam defensive weapons. (What?! The military only has what they tell us they have?! LOL)
layered missile defenses do nothing........a subsonic Sea skimming missile isn't visible till it clears radar horizon, then think about supersonic and hypersonic ones.........speed gives you very less time to act........let's say if you detected a supersonic Sea skimming missile at 15km.........such missiles cover 15km in less than 30 sec.......do u know what's the operator response time in case if a missile is detected?? You need minimum 40-50 sec to respond (launch preparation)..........and air defenses are designed to shoot mainly aircarft and drone sized targets........a cruise missile has a RCS of less than 0.5 and hence hard to detect at longer ranges........this isn't ballistic missile where the trajectory is predictable and easy to shoot
You lost me at "Because the earth isn't flat" 😂😂😊😊
Well it ain’t flat so...
SmallBrain
The earth fucking cube guys. Get with it!
@@reickuhibata Boi the earth is a dildo shape not a cube not flat or a sphere
The earth is a hexagon morons
Another fascinating and well thought out video...thanks!
Except, he got the purpose of the "pop up" maneuver wrong. It's purpose is to inflict more damage to the target, not out maneuver countermeasures.
I quite like that part where you talk about compromise of speed, range, size, and altitude. Engineering is always full of such compromises, not just in missiles, but virtually all designs.
I'm assuming the reason that missiles that wish to be supersonic, long range and low flying need to be large is in order to carry more fuel and more powerful jet engines. I wonder if it would be possible to build a missile that flies at subsonic speeds up to the point where they cross the horizon to save on fuel and thus size, and only accelerate to supersonic speed when they detect the target ship's radars, which would indicate they crossed the target's radar horizon.
Now, I don't actually know how that would be done. But fighter jets like the F-15 switch between sub and supersonic speed by activating afterburners. By throwing extra fuel into the exhaust of the jet engine, you could increase thrust without needing more air to be fed into the jet engines. So maybe that could work for a missile?
I don't know. I'm obviously not a weapons designer so maybe some already thought of that and said "forget it. Too complex." Still, fun to think about.
EDIT: Nevermind. That got brought up at the very end of the video. That's what I get for posting 80% of the way through. Oops.
Yeh, the compromise between speed and detection is something which no other channels ( that I've come across) have ever discussed.
*US Department of Defense wants to know your location*
Russia has developed the 3M-54 Kalibr, which flies at subsonic speed, then accelerated to supersonic speed in its terminal phase. Though not all variant have supersonic capability, the subsonic-only variant has a much greater range. And not all variant is anti-ship, it's basically like the Tomahawk, where it have land-attack and anti-ship variant.
Believe it or not, i had a similar idea. why not develope 2 stage missiles, one cruise stage that carries the weapon at subsonic speed and than actuating the second stage with a faster burning solid propellant (therefor generating more thrust) when closing up ......
and than at the last minutes, the narrator of this video mentioned this exact idea, i guess that such ideas find a lot of minds to grow in XD.
@@mandernachluca3774 cruise missiles are air breathing engines, what's the point if you use solid booster?? It'll be a rocket motor which can't maneuver well due to high Mach speeds......and flying low at such speeds destroys the missile....... not suitable for antiship role.......while in supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles, they use second stage liquid ramjet or scramjet to boost its speeds
They have.. AGM-158C LRASM
also
Because they have been developing the rail gun and lazer system for this... in other words super sonic is slow.
The USA navy rail gun program has been canceled. Check it out! Russia already has a high energy weapon (laser) in service with it's military. It is called Peresvet high-energy laser weapon. You can check it out for yourself.
@@maximusfl3926 its Russian. Them dunks cant build anything right
@tankapples Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russian weapon systems compete with our systems in worldwide sales. Russia and the USA are the worlds exporters of weapons. We even buy Russian weapons. The USA Police forces have purchased millions of dollars worth of the new AK shot gun. Look at VEPR 12 and the Saiga 12, both russian made. Russia also makes the fastest fighter aircraft in the world, radar systems, and fastest rockets on the planet. We even use Russians to ferry us back and forth to the space station, and we buy the Russian made RD-180 rocket engine. Don't believe what you see in the movies, or on the MSM news.
Zomak blah, you’re dreaming, LaWS is only good for drones and speedboats. 🚤
USA#1 !!, no, it’s LaWS, a weak system installed on the USS Ponce. 35kw, my car has more than the 35 kWh
1:55 "the earth is not flat" how dare you!!! Im calling Mark Seargent, I have him on speed dial!
perhaps the earth is flat and round at the same time :)
The earth is a triangle
I'm going to have to crumple my maps.
Vacation land for legislators in love.
Good, ring him. Was seen hiding ‘evidence’ in the BBC Document?
0:41 The service hatch to the AK-630 was blown open lol
Thank You so much for finding time to voice the great vids!
US: *"Keep ur missiles to yerself..."*
*"CUZ WE GOT LAZERS! YeA BaBY!"*
@XerXes it can be developed in future
YOU STRAIGHT JACKET JACKASS. THE U.S. HAS THE BEST WEAPONS IN THE WORLD. U. S. SPENDS 700 BILLION DOLLARS ON MILITARY COMPARED TO RUSSIAS 75 BILLION. WHAT DOES THAT TELL U.
The Ultimate Male ok no need to scream at people for no reason at all...
@@spamlord7570 DIDNT SCREAM. HOW U FIGURE THAT? CAPITAL LETTERS DOESNT MEAN YOURE SCREAMING AND THERE ARE NO EXCLAMATION MARKS.
@@theultimatemale6820 I always read capital letters as if someone is screaming. I think most people do.
Even if I am obviously just having a casual conversation with someone whose caps lock is broken, I can't help but to read it that way.
I even read your "DIDN'T SCREAM" as if you were screaming.
I LOVE FINDING QUALITY CONTENT ON THIS APP. GREAT VIDEO SIR!
"This is called the horizon" I just love learning these technical jargon terms
I was an electronic warfare technician in the US Navy i got out in 1995 I was an EW2. They've merged that rate with the CTs in 2003. I was stationed on frigate FF-1074 In Desert Storm. One of the biggest threats were mines in the Persian gulf. They didn't have much of a naval threat. When the Soviet Union broke up they sold a shit ton of weapons. Air and land based ASMs were out there The ship's survivability depends on how proficient the people sitting at the electronic warfare console are at their job. You don't have a lot of time to identify a threat and take appropriate action. I'm assuming the electronic warfare equipment has evolved significantly since I was in, but so have the weapons.
I was also stationed on a Spruance class DD-980 when it was coverted to a strike destroyer when the removed the ASROC launcher and installed the VLS for the Tomahawk. On deployment we had the SH-60 Seahawk with the LAMPS system it extended our ESM capabilities. It had Harpoon launchers, CIWS, and 2 5 inch guns. When the EW operator detects a threat we had to take a few factors into consideration the threat itself and its capabilities, wind speed, and the firing arcs of our CWIS and guns, and recommend a course and speed for maximum effectiveness of chaff and flares that also stays within the CWIS firing arc while also trying to give the threat the smallest profile for its targeting system. I would assume that's calculated by a computer now but when i was in the Navy we had to do it by hand.
A typical one on one scenario with a hostile ship would be the ESM gear detects a long range search radar by analyzing the singal characteristics, then you may also detect their navigation radar. That should be enough information to determine the type of ship. When you know the class of ship then you know what type of missiles and guns it is carrying. You inform the operations officer and he asks the radar operators if they have anything at the bearing then this information is relayed to the captain. If your ship's search radar detects them then they already know you are there because the ESM detection range of a radar is further than its operating range. The next thing your ESM gear would see is a fire control radar in it's search mode so you inform the operations officer and relays the information to the captain. So you make you calculations for course and speed. If the fire control radar locks on to you it's a very distictive sounnd. If they launch a missile depending on the type if it is radar guided you would detect its search mode then it may lock on you. While that is happening you are informing operations officer and its chaff and/or flare launching time. If your ESM gear is capable of jamming depending on the type of radar the missle has there are different jamming techniques. If the missle is capable of "home on jam" then obviously you don't want to engage it. You have to hope that your chaff and flares offer a better target or your point defence handles the missle.
To be honest the supersonic and hypersonic missles scare the shit out of me. The video makes good points about the time and altitude that the faster missles take however the slower the missle, the easier it is for your point defence to track target and destroy the threat.
Ciws is no joke too
Nicely written and good first hand knowledge, cheers
E Higgins Thank you for your service
E Higgins. I would love to talk with you. I work on naval short and long range missiles. Always admired US navy.
Thank you. I have not seen a break down this detailed and intelligent since the old Airpower Australia break downs of air doctrine that was also easy to access without a lot of technical background. He stopped updating years ago and I have missed it. There are a few others but this was really quite good. I was wondering if you would mention the difference in naval philosophy and the new missiles that are in development and you did. Subscribed.
This was quality content. I'm not a huge military or tactical nerd, but I like the clear concise, and high quality visuals. Thank you, earned a sub from me!
Loads more info than normal, this is great.
This is quite an objective video on the subject. But I think Covert Cabal missed, or better to say, didn't emphasise enough, one huge drawback of supersonic missiles, and that is their IR signature. When a supersonic missile flies at high speeds it literally glows in the dark, meaning some of the US satellites are able to detect them, satellites like SBIRS. And that's a long detection range, you can prepare pretty well when you see a missile coming and track it from 500 km or more..
And, if you can track a missile's course, you may likely find the launch source as well. Modern warfare is a constant and intricate balancing act between measures and countermeasures. Your observation is spot-on.
Swarm at high speed....Who cares if you can see the barrel of a shotgun, if you can't do stop the shot? The future of disabling naval assets is in swarming defenses, and I think these supersonic missiles will be the vehicle.
The thing about shotguns? They have to be fired from close range. The same applies to a swarm of missiles ... unless you put them all in a giant air/sea truck. Big trucks=big targets.
@@chooseymomschoose Why do you think hypersonic missile swarm would need to fired close range? In the battle of Stalingrad, t-34 were being driven right off the factory line, by untrained civilians and no ammo, and they swarmed and defeated the Nazi advance because the Nazis ran out of ammo. I think a few thousand rockets fired in a way that they all would strike at nearly the same time.
@@PowderLlamma A simultaneous missile strike would indeed overwhelm almost any ship alone, although US fleet defenses are multilayered. Anything from extreme distance would first be intercepted by fighters, then missile defense, then CWIS systems. It is also likely that Russia does not have the ability to launch enough of said rockets, especially with reliability.
You know what guy, never heard of you before but it's not a damn computer voice and this video was so much more researched than most of the military videos I see on YT. Hell of a job. SUBSCRIBED.
They claim they do not have one. The US Military denies have certain weapons for years before admitting to it.
Exactly! Assuming they know what the military doesn't have is ignorant af
@@jamesporter6288 They don't have supersonic anti ship missiles. It's not a secret and there's no reason to keep it a secret. Half of the reason for having these weapons is so everyone knows you have them and you don't have to use them.
@@fuckjewtube69 That's not true. You want them to know you have weapons yea, but not to know the exact details or anything about them. Any information of a weapon can be used against it.
@@T10Titan Did I say exact details? You're not listening.
@@fuckjewtube69 Why didn't we know about the SR71 blackbird until long after its production?
Great video! You should do a piece on evolved ATGM capabilities/systems/tactics and how they’ve forced an evolution in armored systems and tactics. A comparison of the latest MANPADS systems and capabilities (like the new Stinger bloc) would also be really interesting!
Ground warfare video from Covert Cabal would be cool
Afaik stinger would look quite bad there. As i heard Rus latest manpad missile is not so great too.
Short answer we developed them in 1973. It was a violation of an arms treaty that expired earlier this year. We purchased a butt ton of them. Oh FYI they are hyper sonice ASMs. They use scram jets.
tl;dr - because the speed of sound is an arbitrary goal post for measuring ASM performance
Not at all, it's a barrier that determines critical design factors of missiles, planes etc; heck even transonic speeds create greater stresses. Imagine saying what you saif to the scientists, engineers and pilots that were involved in achieving supersonic flight and then making it operational in militaries. That development eventually made it *necessary* for Anti Air missiles to be supersonic, the ability to close with ships at speeds significantly above Mach .8 is ideal.
New to the channel, love the human voice and how the material/content is presented and organized....subbed
You forgot to mention that two years ago when Russia launched a bunch of their new Kalibr missiles at anti government forces in Syria, the missiles flew over parts of Iran and a bunch of them malfunctioned and crashed in Iran. There are pictures of the multiple wreckages. Iran gave them permission to use their airspace and then had missiles falling out of the sky on them. The problem with Russian equipment is they will say something is amazing but then when it’s used it doesn’t work as advertised. It’s even worse with the Chinese. They lost 110 submariners when their engines killed them. They sell helicopters that crash. Antiaircraft guns that when newly assembled and tested killed it’s Indonesian crew.
In other words, work smarter not harder.
indeed
If only it were that simple.
@Rev limits , it is probably 2nd to Russia.
@Rev limits Lmao! The US is only as powerful as the world allows it to be. The only reason Europe goes along with you is because they fear Russia. If it weren't for Russia, your barbaric state would have long been blockaded and sanctioned.
America doesn’t need advanced missile technology when it has Chuck Norris.
Chuck Norris, Rambo, The Terminator, The Rock, and Dirty Harry
@Big Bill O'Reilly if you claim to be American, leave, if not stay away !!!!
that poor hack of an actor just was s9oooo boring..predictable Hollywood rubbish
@@MrOiram46 Don´t forget Charles Bronson.
Excellent analysis. Low altitude missiles such as the Harpoon also have an advantage due to sea clutter. It is very difficult for radar systems to discriminate (identify and lock onto) missiles flying low over the water because the sea waves create reflections that hide the missile. A major advantage for the Harpoon.
Will you please do video(s) concerning helicopter warfare?
Thanks
Great vids
Really great video that was interesting and made so a layman like me could understand. Thank you for your work.
I hate to "age" myself, but during the segment of the "Cold War" Navy, is a short segment of the Sixth Fleet aircraft carrier, USS Franklin D Roosevelt, CVA 42. Although "The Rosie" was at various times designated a CV, CVA and CVB; for most of her times she was designated a CVA (Carrier Vessel Attack). The CV's had several different functions at different times, in addition to CVA, there was CVB (Carrier Vessel Battle), CVS (Carrier Vessel Submarine). I was attached to the A Division (Legal, now known as JAG). Great duty and awesome Port's of Call!!!
Great video. But why no mention of the second most famous anti-ship missile (after the Harpoon), the Exocet? Also sea-skimming subsonic missile...
I did design work on missiles and radar warning. The Harpoon was already designed when I was a young engineer, and I am old and retired now.
If a subsonic missile is sea skimming at about 30ft (5-6m), is it possible to detect it from AWACS?? Cuz when awacs looks down it will have to detect missile against background ocean clutter.........and is it possible for the awacs to guide ship board airdefenses to intercept antiship missiles (ASM).........I mean intercepting an ASM with only AWACS
@@forfun5238 I just work for a subcontractor to design a few of the Aluminum boxes of electronics that go into the missile. Sometimes the prime contractor will send a propaganda film the subcontractor, but those could be found on youtube by now.
@@forfun5238 Man you have to search what is SM6. It is already there, deployed.
@@musketeerorder4902 what's the minimum targetable altitude of SM6??
@@forfun5238 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM I dont know more just a civilian LOL
The most interesting and instructive review that I've ever seen about missiles.
I take membership.
Thanks for the informations
Radar still has issues being usable when angled downwards, ergo having missiles skim the surface are much more difficult to detect.
10:13
Dude almost face-plants.
Informative. Not Biased.Human voice. Good job.Thank U.
The USA has a diferent military doctrine from other countries for two reasons. It has an unlimited military budget. It is also the only offensive military on the planet. Offensive operations neeed diferent equipment from defending.
Whether you view the USA military as offensive or expeditionary would depend on whether you believe it has primarily been deployed for the interests of the American people or elite moneyed interests. North Korea could in no way be considered either offensive or expeditionary. It totally lacks any mobility for its massive army other than boots. It also lacks any weaponry for controlling the airspace. Limited to. Attacking bordering countries, there is no country in the world it could attack. Though it’s artillery and massive army would be a formidable force against an invader.
@Tom H. nk is not offensive .USA is offensive because it is imperlist power just like UK of past .
To be an expeditionary military Force would require being able to transport enough troops and equipment to successfully wage war with a non bordering country. The USA is the only country with that ability. At best those other countries can make a small contribution to a conflict. Russia is stretching its capabilities with the conflict in Syria. China’s force projection is limited to the South China Sea.
@@klardfarkus3891 Nice delusions, lol!
USA was created by multiple expeditionary military forces remember? And back then they used wooden ships and sails? What year do you live in?
Yea educated will notice a number of the annual US Defense Budget. Word unlimited isn't even in any of those?
Entire USAF is weak to very weak at best.
Let's stick to the facts?
The current year is relevant. Things have changed since the 1700’s
Just like a slow blade penetrates a body shield
Gurney Halleck,
Dune.
Thanks Frank
This was a fantastic video! Very well done!
I'm sure the USA won't advertise everything they have
Nobody does it, indeed.
martin joseph sure, because they want to sell it to their nato puppets
ALPHA OMEGA saudis are americas best friends sooooo... stupid argument against russians
@@gahdhsh623, Saudis are Russia's friends too...did you see how Putin and Bin Salman gave hi 5 in Argentina a few months back ?
ALPHA OMEGA I wrote best friends, they sell them weapons for billions of $, russians dont do that, I don't defend them, they have their own games but when in comes to weapons america is still the main world dealer... just watch what they will do to turkey when they buy s400... not because they hate erdogan, but because they dont want russians to be close to their equipment they sold to him already...
The real question to me is why did we take the cannons off our ships? I have absolute confidence in our ground and air forces but our navy hasn’t seen a naval battle since ww2 70+ years ago, only rockets on the ships seem like a bad idea.
missiles have far superior range and accuracy.
Yeah but the enemy’s ships also have advanced anti missile defenses, so what happens when both ships fired at each other and shot down the missiles???
They need something to shoot at countries using recreational ski boats as weapons!
Guns are still on ships they just became smaller. Ships will never shoot down all the missiles, by the time they close to gun range (if they ever do) it will only be to finish off the loser, as has repeatedly happened in modern missile combat.
I believe China have nailed this concept.
They took a soviet sub sonic sea skimming design and gave it a terminal supersonic booster.
10:11 dude walking almost biffed it haha
You just pissed off a lot of flat Earthers... LMAO "It flies low to the ground because the Earth is not what?"
Power Off id actually like to see a flat earthers rebuttal to that tho they just cant lol
@@kriz0826 lol
Very informative video. Wondering how you got all this info you must really be a militaria geek
Americans have designed and threw away plans for hypersonic ASCMs . ASALM (Wikipedia it. It was cool) for one. At Mach 4.5, less than 30 ft off the waves, the poor ship has no chance. I think it was Carter that shot that one down. Reagan didn't revive it. Tested on a target ship (without a warhead) it gutted and sank it on kinetic energy alone. "Sir, incoming missile at 20 miles, bearing 175, spe....BOOOM!!" That would be all the warning you would get. I'm glad such systems don't exist by USA enemies. Because I know USA has drones that will out preform them. War isn't a childhood game. And some tech should shelved. Hopefully forever.
Starpangle I looked on RUclips but can't find a reference to it. However, if you Wiki; Asalm missile, it will take you to the page about it. It weighed 2700 lbs at launch. It cruised at Mach 4.5.
A 2000 lb thing hitting another thing at 4.5 times the speed of sound will break it in half. It also had the option of a nuke warhead. As I said, this is one of those things I'm glad we didn't fund. Martin Marietta came up with some crazy ideas. Copperhead, Hell Fire, Patriot, Pershing 2, Asalm. Some were purchased. Others weren't.
A Human Narrated this video... I am Proud...
*EARTH IS OVAL!*
I mean...it is a little bit 😂
Earth is global. hint hint.
Interesting. Good video. Thanks. Especially that you don't talk popular jabber only but also give precise details and numbers.
Love your videos so much ❤️
Supersonic is so yesterday. Beam weapons and rail guns are the future.
Yes they are totes not supersonic. :)
0:27 Who's frigate is that on the right of the picture?
With the spinning quad face AESA or PESA radar?
It's not American.
the us navy just won a war
the flat earther war
with the range portion
The US does have Mach 2-3.5 anti ship missiles. The SM2/3/6/ESSM missiles were originally built as anti air missiles ( used against other missiles, aircraft), and have now been updated so you can choose anti air or anti ship functions.
The only issue is they have smaller warheads than dedicated anti ship missiles.
Still, if you have run out of harpoons ( why ships only carry 8 I have no idea), and have 60 ESSMs, and the enemy is 50km away, you have other weapons to use now.
Small correction: Harpoon is not vertically launched; it's fired from two four-tube rack-type launchers on the fantail of both the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and the remaining Ticonderoga-class cruisers.
Don't forget your AWAC plane which can 'see' for hundreds of kilometres.
No bot voice weapon details and dcs footage to demonstrate subbing now
Thats why turkey also developed the atamca subsonic antiship missle which can be mounted on all ships aircraft they have and especially the large fleet of small drones.
>China getting uppity in the south asian sea
>New American supersonic ASM
>Name: "Sea DRAGON"
...Hmm. *_Subtle._*
its called south CHINA sea, idiot
@@fireballyang7310
_"its called south CHINA sea"_
Not for long.
@@matchesburn I can't wait for you to bomb China, when are you going to do it? Stop the pussy trade war, DO IT! Bruh~
Searching for "South Asian Sea" sent me to South China Sea, so it's clear that English speakers generally equate the two. Besides, half the bodies of water out there have contested names, because they all still hate each other.
@@CTOInformation
_"bomb China"_
...Why? I think it's more interesting to watch a house of cards eventually teeter and collapse on its own. At this point, we're playing political science Jenga and China is left with a swaying tower and its their turn. I wanna watch this shit, not knock it over.
No mention of the french Exocet missile? Can be launched from a submarine, a plane or a ship and has been tested sucessfully in combat against the british during the Falklands conflict. You should have talked about it, since it's been a reference in naval warfare for 40 years.
Why? The US Navy does not use it, and the only other missiles mentioned are supersonic or they are new missile designs. There was really no reason to bring the Exocet into the discussion.
@@22steve5150 Then why talking about new japanese, chinese or indian missiles not used either by the US?
@@eddieguyvh4765 It's because they are NEW. The idea is explaining why the USN has stayed with Harpoon for so long and why the next gen AShM for them will also be subsonic while some other navies are building supersonic missiles, but there is no reason to mention another subsonic AShM with almost identical performance and that is just as old (and heavily upgraded) as the Harpoon
The video was talking specifically about the US and supersonic missiles so there was no room for the Exocet to be mentioned.
this was rather informative. thank you for the video!
you're going to trigger the flat earthers @ 1:53 LOL
Yep,, i believe the earth is flat but that's my opinion..But not speaking for others...lol !!!
Violent J 1975 why do you believe the earth is flat I don’t get it
Great video, great explanations, great use of video and game footage. "It raises the question," not "begs the question." 1:00
Excellent video. There is another aspect of this, between satellites, combat air patrols, and AWACs the US Navy can pinpoint and attack enemy missile ships accurately at long range, which is much harder for other Navies to do. Moreover, at least according to to an old Navy buddy who is a fire control officer, several of our long range missiles can be directed in flight by fighter planes or AWACs. This is an advantage with long range missiles, because most missiles go to a designated target area (where the people launching it thinks the enemy will be) and then lock on radar. But if the target makes a radical course change, they could be fifty or more miles from the target area by the time the missiles get there. With our superior tracking ability, we can spot such a course change in real time and update the missile in flight, as well as detecting enemy launches at far greater range.
With short range missiles this is less helpful as the ship won't have time to get away, but with some missiles having ranges over 2,000 km, you could have an hour or more. So it the enemy sees you steaming north at 20 knots, the target area will be 20 nautical miles north. But warned of the launch the ships could reverse course at flank speed and be far away before the missile gets there.
Also, the stealthy F-35 can carry anti-ship missiles and launch them at close range, so that will be an advantage once they are fully deployed to the fleet. Now if China comes up with a truly credible naval air arm, we will need to do some re-thinking.
They already are and have been. The rethinking should have already been done that time has come and is long past. And to me, it does not look like the rethinking has been done. This is currently one of the biggest reasons why I have lost faith in the military leadership, I really dont know what the hell they have been doing but it seems to me either politicians have been holding them nack or they have been sitting their with their thumb up their ass since 2012 watching china gain on us. Maybe you can offer some evidence to the contrary?
@@cameronspence4977
What evidence do you have that we are not updating technologies and tactics for China? And they still don't have a very credible Navy. Here's a hint - the US military doesn't give out its secrets to satisfy your curiosity. And while we do have hypersonic missiles (not in deployment yet) are they the best answer for our fleet? Yeah, China is a rich country developing new capabilities. What's new about that?
My big worry is that Trump might have given/sold them information on what our military is doing to counter that.
Here's the only example I personally know of. In the eighties Soviet passive sonar was getting better - making our subs more vulnerable. A new technology was developed that allowed our subs to maneuver at reasonable speeds while remaining nearly as quiet as if they were not moving at all. Nobody in the outside world knew anything about this - for all I know, they still don't, which is why I cannot hint at how this was done.
Great videos. I wonder how effective the wests defences really are. The falklands war was a wakeup call. The Exocet apparently is not even top of its class now or then. I guess perhaps lessons have been learned? I wonder what your thoughts are?
I enjoyed this video! You did a great job.
And great that you used footage from some of the great sims out there (DCS for example). If you wanna do something F-16 centric, check out Falcon BMS.
what if i told you that not all tech is disclosed to the public.
Joshua Worman what if i tell you , a country couldn't simply deploy a ASM platform in a day,
US warships have no room for a new missile you need a new design and by that time US already lost its navy
Nicely f'n done.
LOL.... I have that joystick!! 12:52. Wish I had the simulator he's using it with!!
In my dumb theory, if we had supersonic anti-ship missiles, Russian defenses wouldn't be able to respond to them.
5:50-the Russian’Harpoon-ski’
8:11-In the 90s, there was to be a Flight 3 Burke class which will have 122 vice 90/96-cell VLS.
14:04-"Was that a Spruance-class destroyer? Didn't we decommission them all?
it was a sruance but it wasn't meant to focus on this ship it was meant to show the missile the ship was carrying
It's a possibility. Russian fire control may or may not have been able to keep up with the speed. Hard to tell.
Well Ticos have that many, plus they've got admiral room so no big loss.
That does look like a Spruance, it could be an older video but I think the USN actually has kept a Spruance in service as a test ship.
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 yeah, you’re right. The last test ship I remember us having was the USS Norton Sound (AVM-1).
Dude this videos is solid! Thank you for breaking this down in a logical way. I was wondering why the US didn’t have a hypersonic missile and why we didn’t seem concerned about other nations having them. This video explains a lot thank you again great job!
10:12 next to the fork-lift
I get what you are saying but a missle traveling at supersonic speed does not leave you much time to find and attack said missle.
it does if its going 200 miles
@@johnnyllooddte3415 Goodluck hitting it at supersonic speed. 200 miles out isnt very far at 700+ mph.
Exactly what I was thinking. A missile travelling at mach 7 doesnt *need* to manoeuvre very much to radically change the volume of space it is flying through. It is such an insane speed that hitting it with point defences would be an absolute nightmare. Still, its all theorycraft unless things turn hot.
Should probably add though, that Russia S400 etc anti-air missiles are widely recognised as the best in the world, so hard to discount their philosophy as simple "moar speed gud" when it comes to ship killers. I'm sure they have thought it through long and hard, since US navies are a major part of the US capacity for force projection.
@@TheMastaRob Thank you, and I agree with you. Also I really dont think Russia, China or the USA would have a conventional war for very long if and God forbid a war actually started between the 2 or 3 of them. Im imagining the nukes would start flying the minute one side felt they were going to lose and then everyone would launch whatever they have, from nuclear to biological to something we dont even no about yet. I do feel we the USA will eventually come across these missles but it will be after Russia or China gives them to another smaller country such as Iran. Hell if I know, I only have a doctorate in Dumbassery not missles.
@@jasonsmizer5431 Go enlist with your 'luck'?
US may be helpless and defenseless against hypersonic weapons. Meanwhile during ASD15 we just simply shot down any and all hypersonic weapons in the air and in space at the same time.
100% hit ratio again and again and again cos ... lucky right? ;-)
@Masta is right. Stop the theorycraft and go do a live fire exercise and see if you can hit them all.
At 0:27 There is a ship with some type of rotating phased array radar. What class of ship is that??
Wait a minute but the earth is flat that's 21 century's newest descovery
Wait a minute. When I put a beer on my wife’s head when she’s doing her duty, it doesn’t roll off.
It would if you gave it more than 10 seconds.
This is a brilliant channel. I’m not even interested in war and yet this channel is so entertaining.
13:33 When your crush says hi
If I had a super sonic ASM I would have been first!
Im sorry guy this time the World has MomShip and Transfor ion Power can Anti every Weapons. Don't belive me if your never seen same me