Sky-High Six-Shooter Blasts Hypersonic Hellfire
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- A new weapon with potentially earth-shattering power emerges in the high-stakes armory of global superpowers. The trusty old workhorse of the sky, the C-17 Globemaster III, now packs a punch with a terrifying secret: REVOLVER. The spinning barrels of this device are reminiscent of a classic revolver, but it does not fire bullets; it unleashes hypersonic missiles capable of obliterating entire cities.
The REVOLVER system is more than an homage to its namesake’s firepower-it is a revolution. These missiles are launched with unstoppable force by the C-17’s electromagnetic catapult system, turning it into a powerhouse missile carrier capable of swift, long-range strikes.
With this advancement, the U.S. military significantly beefed up its arsenal, primed and ready to take on the hypersonic superweapons of China and Russia.
However, despite its awesome power, the REVOLVER system faces a tough road ahead. With its jaw-dropping Mach 20 speed, the Russian nuclear-capable Avangard missile casts a long, terrifying shadow as a stark reminder that the race for hypersonic dominance is far from over.
Even with the REVOLVER’s incredible capabilities, one question lingers: will it be enough to keep the United States ahead in the hypersonic tech race?
That system was classified TOPSEC when I was with the C17 Program. Must have something way better now they've released it on YT 😂
Either that, or there's been a decision to "flex" for global political reasons. Usually done as a 'discouragement'.
edit: or it could have been superseded by Rapid Dragon.
100% true, if our military makes something public, it's very likely they already consider it obselete even though the rest of the world will consider it "state of the art". Been like this for a long time.
Nah it’s just that the current administration only gives a dam about DEI CRAP, remember G. Miley “I need to understand my white rage and BTW, I called my Chinese counterpart and told him I’d let him know if trump was going to do anything blah, blah blah
Probably because the rapid dragon system something tells me it's probably cheaper and easier to use then this.
@@themenace4017 I can feel the bitter, white rage as you pound each index finger into your QWERTY keyboard! I hope your blood pressure meds are nearby before you stroke out. I guess you missed the rainbow Pride patch on one of the paratrooper's shoulders.
They put in wrong footage to increase comments. Helps with the algo.
Clever.
Ah, so that explains the C-130
For the record, any ballistic missile, including Russia's Avangard is "hypersonic". Hell, the Apollo reentry capsules back in the 60s were "hypersonic" at reentry (~Mach 47 for the Apollo 10 mission). It's not difficult to produce high hypersonic speeds when dropping something from space. The fact that the Avangard system uses glide missiles is essentially faking it. The idea is to get a hypersonic cruise missile that doesn't have to start by being dropped from an ICBM.
Well, HS ballistics are just "fancy reentry vehicles" true. But the key bit is that if they're instilled with any significant maneuvering capability (during reentry), then they're considered as somewhat more exotic than just bombs which fall in a predictable arc. I agree it's a bit of a gray area though. And there's a fair amount of marketing spin out there.
Nope. But thanks for playing. 🤡
@@michaelp7617i liked the part when you proved him wrong.
oh wait…
Rapid Dragon. It isn't locked to 1 airframe. Either or, the # of bomb trucks available is mind bending.
Rapid dragon is for smaller cruise missile and can go in c17a, great but easier to intercept those LRASM and JASSM missiles going subsonic
I remember when this was proposed with modified 747s. They carried a few more than twelve missiles.
I agree, if we make anything public, the military likely already considers it obselete even though the rest of the world will consider it "state of the art technology ". Been this way for a long time.
Why do you keep showing c-130s while you're talking about globemasters? One is a prop plane, ones not.
Because the people who select the footage don’t actually listen to what they are talking about or know what they are doing.
Close your eyes and pretend it's radio
@HansMcMurdy OK. OK, OK, I just gotta ask.... WHAT??? As a retired military aviator, I just have to ask under WHAT CONFIGURATION can ANY model of C-130 Hercules do water landings and takeoff? 😂
@@rogerthat4545 😂😂😂
Yeah, my respect for these channels is diminishing by the day. So many errors & that is a blantant one. I think there was more footage of the C-130 than the C-17.
this isnt new,,, but happy to see you covering it :D
This guy could Dark Tech a cheese sandwich and I'd still watch
@@seeriktus DarkTech - Please Dark Tech a Cheese Sandwich! (Combat capabilities and readiness of each of the deployment types. Plain, Grilled, and Panini)
@@johnlovell8299 Can you attach a JDAM kit to a baguette?
Remind the name of our old Hypersonic missiles?
@@rogerthat4545the v2 was a hypersobic missle my friend
With a Range 450nm+ Mach 4.5 and launched from over 200 US C-17, this is game changing- ships and land base targets would have 1 min to engage if detected 50mns out
Super scare to see these come in, they could decimated fleet of ships
That’s system fits in most military cargo planes, that’s a lot of firepower.
The invisible system fits in every plane.
It is a budget game changer as well. Unless we find a way to manufacture high tech missiles at scale.
@@brianboye8025 Not everything is in the budget, there is a little in the gray brain cells.
As well as a lot of the civilian cargo planes as well! Thats a deep bench for carriers.
The guys who keep complaining about the video footage not being fully accurate to what the narrator is saying; no one is using these dark5 videos for academic purposes like references and whatnot. This is merely entertainment. The video editor clearly wasn’t interested in reviewing the script very carefully and just quickly threw together a video to get it done. It really doesn’t matter, anyhow. You guys remind me of people who are absolutely compelled to correct peoples grammar and spelling on their RUclips comments. Like it is an assignment and they ought to have expected it to be graded and corrected. You took it far more seriously than the OP did. Let it go, eh?
I bet the grammar police have a real name that sounds Chinese. Mr. Dang Ling Participle.
I believe all the images are AI selected
🤔
😏
...correct _people's_ grammar...
... Let it go, _aye?_
🤭
@@gh8447 Easy come, easy go .. 🤓
The video is just like filler something to watch while you're listening to the information if anything they should be scrutinizing what they hear not what they see on the video
Say 12 waveriders coming in at Mach 4.5, they would be impossible for jets to intercept, and very very hard for antimissile systems to target, especially if they do a gradual turn into their target at the last second
Kind surprised we haven't built an AC-17 yet.
It would defeat the purpose of loitering time over the target. Ac-130 flies slower to accommodate this mission. Would be cool as hell to have that big airframe of a C-17 to fit more firepower though.
Oh come on. Rapid Dragon doesn't even need EMALS at at all.
If it's just dumping the missiles out the back, there are no high, missile-generated engine forces that require extensive modification to the C-17.
Whats this claim based on?
Ya there are some decent forces, say your pushing a 1 ton middle out the back at 70 mph, you really need to a frame in there mounted at multiple points on the airframe
The X-51A was a test prototype that flew once successfully in 2015, and has done nothing since. The USAF may eventually design a scramjet power missile based on that protytype, but there's no indication it's done so yet.
It's more about the launch system. There's a number of missiles which could be deployed in basically the same manner.
@@kathrynck For other missiles, the USAF is planning to use the different Rapid Dragon sysem.
@@bbmw9029 yep.
There are advantages to being able to single-deploy missiles though. And rapid dragon can't do that. But I think the idea of putting missiles on a cargo plane is more intended as a force multiplier, supplementing bombers, in a 'big threat' situation. So rapid dragon may end up housing the HS missiles as well.
would be nice if you explained that all the footage is from actual B-52s and that the launcher is based on that but being modified.
If you watch this channel regularly, it would likely be redundant to have to be told what a B-52 is. Most civilians even know what a B-52 is. :)
@@thomasbarrack1384 yeah, i agree, but i am not asking for the mil nerds, i am asking for the normals :p
@BuddhaAfterDark why would you do that considering all the cargo planes that have been showed?
its funny that they upgraded it to hypersonic missiles since those would be better off under wing or slung into a bombing bay. the idea of an electro magnetic launcher is interesting but would require another device to be used that could be rolled into the bay of the aircraft. since the aircraft isn't being redesigned to specifically carry JUST this weapon system ( to have it integrated into it) far as i knew they were planning to drop palletized cruise missiles out the back and launching them from that ballet/crate system. these pallots would need to be far larger for hypersonics since you would also need the extra motors to get them to speed for the motors to work on them. bombers and such that launch them via air drop/release do so at a higher speed than a cargo plane is capable of. so the rocket motors to achieve that speed would need to be larger as well. ironic really, so i don't think they'd do this sort of system "except in extreme cases"... so i don't expect the program to be wide scale... unlike the cruise missile original ...
Releasing palletized crise missiles. I think it was called the Rapid Dragon IIRC.
You are mixing not only c-17s and C-130s but C-5s as well. Credibility shot.
And a B52
Close your eyes and pretend it's radio
If the video was perfect, y'all would bitch about the robo voice...
if you are going with fake stock photos, at least get the pics from the same family of airplanes
@lpconserv6074 what was "fake"??
2:05 2:19 2:36 5:06 5:41 8:01 8:16 9:42 C130. Herculean editing!
8:29 B52
The thumb nail has nothing to do with the story, it is a picture of the first Trident D5 underwater launch PEM-1. The problem was determined almost immediately and corrected. A perfect example of why things are tested.
Search for PEM-1 to see the whole video
Why do you describe the C- 17 while showing a C - 130?
What is the track playing in background @5:30 ?
The revolver system was developed in the 80s using 747s with side doors that opened with delivery of 81 nuke missiles. The fall of the former Soviet Union came shortly after. 😊
Don’t really like the eject out the rear and fire by the aircraft, seems since every weapons system has a certain percentage of failure, just one fires wrong and delivers itself right back into the cargo bay.
So they will fit in any cargo aircraft practically? Such offensive fire power is impressive, but a game changer? I pray we never see. Those could also be nuclear capable.
Hellfires are not hypersonic.
I'm pretty sure you took that wrong.
He did
What are C130 Hercules doing in the video?
It's only because all three will be able to carry the Revolver. 🥴😎
And because showing the wrong AC increases the replies. The algorithm doesn't care what the replies are saying.
Can anyone explain to me why doesn't the F35 or previous f22 ever considered using a six shooter missile system integrating into their weapon systems back to back as such, like a smaller variant. Just a curios mind that's all.
The YF-23 was going to use 2 "racks" of 4-5 missiles each (4 regular AIM-120's or 5 with folding fins). Bringing it's capacity to 8-10 AIM-120's, plus two AIM-9's under the cockpit.
They would have functioned much like an upside down single-stacked pistol magazine.
Actually the folding fin version might have been able to hold 3 racks.
The F-22 and F-35 are designed with a more shallow internal bay, low on the fuselage. Not really any room for a deep missile-feeding system.
B-52, B-1, B2, and B-21 all have rotary launch systems similar to the one in this video, but dropping down out the bottom, instead of the stacking & rear ejection of the one in video here.
@@kathrynck Thanks for that, pretty fascinating to read, I always wondered if anything like that was in development. Cheers from the UK.
This is not a program of record, and that specific hypersonic weapon was cancelled years ago. This is all based on a military fan-boy's animation. The "real" Rapid Dragon program already does the same thing.
More than 3/4 of the way in we find out that this is NOT in use yet.
If one video is made without the use of the word "solutions" i might go streaking😅
This guy only talks what is written ! He has no connection too what we are seeing ! In most of the pictures we see the globmaster jet engines ! Then we see the turbo props ( old ) pictures ! 😮 I loaded out on both of thoes ! Have U ?
Why at the 8 minute mark are you showing video of a C130? It should stand out like a sore thumb since the C17 isn't a prop plane. It really makes me question the "factual information" in your video making such an obvious mistake. If you can make that kind of an error how much did you error on the rest of the facts?
US weapon systems are only good and work when the other side does possess high tech weapon systems. Looks real good during marketing shows.
This is a classic example of some general thinking too hard and getting ready to make the United States lack in airlift options while a C17 is tied up launching missiles something the b52 is quite better at. Personally, I think we need to cut military funding to R&D so generals and military contractors cannot take advantage of the warfighter with gimmicks that were not meant to be used ever.
The old 6 shooter...
How about Rods From God via High Altitude Hyper Speed Bomber? How many Tungsten Telephone Poles could be carried?
Missile frigate of the sky.
Soooooooo, we keep showing and showcasing " new " ideas that, ANY adversary can look at and take ideas and use themselves. We need to keep a lid on what we are developing.
Do you really think this is "new"? There is classified information, then there is declassified information. If they released this to the public, that means either there is already something better the goons havent shared with the world, or this might be the tip of the spear and they dont think russia, china, etc. have the material science to duplicate this.
if one missile jamms and explodes then?
Why are you showing C-130’s when talking about C-17’s?!
Yes, they’re both big military planes…so….?! The propellers are a clue.
Pretty much turning the c17 from a cargo aircraft into a attack aircraft it's that's obvious so it's now called
CA-17 really
🕊️ Of 🙏
they did this with ICBMs like 50 years ago :D
@@BuddhaAfterDark That was in a C-5 Galaxy, still freaking cool though!
Really this is a more beefed up version of the "Rapid Dragon" system that is being developed for the C-130.
The C-17 is supposed to be the focus here, yet the c-130 keeps being shown, and there is even a shot of a C-5A. Someone needs to do better at video prep and editing.
Watching again because I'm guessing I missed the part where this deployment strategy was selected over Rapid Dragon, which would be:
- cheaper
- less complex
- free of the need to modify the airframe
- higher capacity
Anyone know? Because this makes no sense. I mean, it's cool and all to yeet hypersonic off a futuristic magcat.
But, as a taxpayer, I'd much rather go with a PALETTE AND A PARACHUTE.
🤣nice to know a C-130 can morph into a C-17 ..
Quit showing c 130s and talking about c 17s.
I saw a 747
and B-52s :p
Didn't know it was a turboprop.🤔
Rapid Dragon on a B.52 launcher.
No it isn't. It's for launching cruise missiles from cargo aircraft.
@@bbmw9029 Tapid Dragon does the same thing, using a pallet. Much cheaper.
Russia doesn’t have any “true” hypersonic missiles. All intercontinental missiles travel at hypersonic speeds.
We haven't seen that yours here either.
anything that enters space is hypersonic. the goal here will be to have an airbreathing hypersonic vehicle.
@@toodlepop So what?
@@SrdjanBasaric-w2s i'm just pointing out that hypersonic has been kind of "mastered" in the form of rockets. but when many people talk about advances in hypersonic tech these days, it's usually relating to the engine type, specifically working towards an air breathing engine. as not needing to carry an oxidizer would likely result in higher speeds, longer ranges, a larger warhead, a smaller total package, or some combination of those things. it's just informative, and not really intended to poke at russia or to prop up anyone else. you're a grumpy one.
@@toodlepop It makes a drastic difference if you go hypersonic up or down.
Make mirrors missiles
if you truly believe that Russia has a mach 20 missile, I have a bridge for sale
With a massive production line producing 300 per year.......if on schedule and budget😂😂😂
Are you too lazy to find C17 pictures and video? I gave up in under 3 minutes because more than half of the aircraft shown are C5s, C130s etc....
Boeing makes it?!
Great.
Since Boeing is involved...goodnight!
Does the US have hypersonic missiles?
Not yet no.
Well... it depends on how you define HS missiles.
All ballistic missiles of sufficient size are hypersonic in speed. But that goes back to the 1950's. Even the V-2 was very nearly hypersonic. But those follow a predictable path, like a thrown rock.
Some say that a maneuverable reentry vehicle strapped to a ballistic missile is a "hypersonic missile". Those technically don't go any faster than normal, but present new challenges to interception. Also the degree of maneuverability needed to 'qualify' is very much a gray area. It might be more straightforward to call those HMRV's (highly maneuverable reentry vehicles). Since their "new trick" is maneuvering, not going faster. An emerging popular nomenclature seems to be "HS glide vehicles". Several nations have these. The US is still developing this type.
Then there's hypersonic cruise missiles. The Russian Zircon (Tsirkon) missile is in this category, and is in very limited preliminary active service. There's several US competitors to it, in very late stages of development. AFAIK, the Zircon is the first to reach the early stages of production.
Lastly, there's just "put a bigger rocket on it" brute-force HS missiles, which are not air breathing. More limited in range, but quite fast. That is very close to operational for the US.
The us has successfully tested all 3 types. But none are yet in production. At least not officially.
Broadly speaking, the US was ahead in the technology involved. Structural, aerodynamic, and propulsion tech was pushed forward to pretty advanced levels by a long list of research programs over the past 30 years (not the least of which being the now-defunct space plane program). But the US was the last to officially begin work on production-ready hypersonic missile systems, due to remaining in a treaty against them for a while. The US will likely be looking at production of 2 or 3 types before the end of 2025. Although development timelines are a bit of a crystal-ball thing.
HS missiles are not really entirely "game changing", but they are touted as such, because the US is slightly behind in fielding working models. Kind of a PR-win for those who started early. Conventional air defense systems can shoot them down. But while an air defense system can protect a vast area against slow moving threats, the area it can protect at that speed is more shaped like a narrow corridor. So hypersonic missiles don't overtly threaten hardened targets, but do threaten targets which aren't important enough to be especially close to a top of the line air defense system. And they could be somewhat problematic for ships, if used in bulk quantities to overwhelm defensive systems in a very short period of time.
The US has never been ahead of Russia in missile technology. The US still does not have an equivalent to Granit missiles from the 80's. The US doesn't even have a supersonic cruise missile or anti-ship missile. Their cruise missiles are severely outranged by Russians . Let's not even mention the Skyfall nuclear cruise missile.
The Kinzhal and Zircon both have modernized versions already being worked on and testing. While the US hasn't even had any successful tests yet.
On top of that they have RS-26 completed and sitting to be put into mass production. Along with the RS-28, Topol-M, Avangard all new missile while the US cannot get sentinel off the ground.
The US stop talking about things when it hasn't accomplished the basics yet.
The US is
@@chadbernard2641 The US and Russia are both very good at missile tech. The US largely through a big budget, Russia through very keenly efficient use of a smaller budget. I'd rate the Russian engineers as certainly better, dollar for dollar. But budget-size matters too.
Anyway, I was speaking to the underlying technological advances & expertise to work on hypersonics. The US is significantly ahead in that, and has been for decades. After the bald eagle & baseball, there's little the US likes more than making machines go obnoxiously fast.
The hypersonic missile development timeline is skewed massively by treaty. China was in no such treaty, so they pulled ahead. Russia decided they would not get left behind by China, so they broke the treaty. The US decided they weren't going to get left out and broke the treaty too. For a while China was in the pole position. Then Russia has started to pull ahead of China due to having a superior military aerospace engineering brain-pool than China. Now the US is catching up very rapidly, due to money, and hundreds of crates of research data on making things go absurdly fast, even if building them out as a weapon was banned by treaty.
The US abandoned the treaty in 2018. There's about... 18 (i think?) different HS weapons programs in progress since then. Some of them are certain to be canceled, but I'd expect 5 or 6 systems to be hitting deployment by early 2026. That's a fairly normal timeline for development.
Again though, no shade on Russian aerospace engineers intended. If they want to do something (ie: the money is there for it) they do it. And unlike some countries, they don't need to 'borrow' blueprints to do it. But who has what, right now, comes down to who broke treaty first. And even that doesn't imply any shade, neither the US nor Russia were thrilled at the idea of letting China be the only country working on HS.
You can play with it on ksp with bdarmory mod
😊❤😊❤😊
😊
😊❤😊❤😊❤😊❤😊
😊
U.S. Dollars well spent.
Mach 20 my ass😂😂😂
What are they shooting flares at something ? They have had flares since WW2. Why keep showing that. Its Not impressive.
The quality of this channel has plummeted. Did the channel owner change?
Should have named it Ocelot, like the Metal Gear character. lol shame
Rapid Dragon deployment is better, faster and cheaper.
It's all about the ECM. The electromagnetic catapult mechanism. Brilliant really.
Its amazing how old ancient technology still inspires new creations
I remember a few years ago china and Russia were testing their first hypersonic missiles. Then America launched one and said, oh yeah we already have that.
Indeed, it looks like although the USAF Revolver modular weapon systems can be deployed on the C-17 Globemaster it can also be deploted on the C-130 Hercules.
RMY
You are mixing up C-17s with C-130s, B-52s and C-5s please stop mindlessly using generic stock footage...
China: Anti-gravity drones
America: Dropping missiles out of the back cargo planes
Anti gravity drones, please elaborate?
At first glance the repeated use of C-130 images is a little distracting.
But on reflection it makes no difference to the story.
The AI has yet been taught the difference between jet and propeller.
But maybe it's true that a few minor visual errors envigorates the algorithm.
RMY
The Russians are probably saying, wow let’s build some of those
17, 130, potatoes, pumpkins.
If Boeing is involved, might want to have a 3rd person review to make sure they didn't screw up.
If applied to retired 747's, easily done, 70,000 missiles could be simultaneously launched.
A story about a C-17 weapons system... populated with numerous clips of C-130s.
the Russian Avangard is is way less terrifying in practice than it is on paper.
Again and again... Wrong film, wrong craft.. Cancelling subscription.
7:25 I am not a rocket scientistician or nothin but I can count to 8, 2 more than 6, and that there launch drum has 8 not 6 missiles loaded on it.
Are you reading off a pamphlet?
That method has been deployed for years .
The video is about C17 but yet you keep showing more C130s than C17s
I don’t know why we always gotta show off our weapons!
If that missile is made by Boeing; it’s definitely going to explode
Can you speak NORMALLY??
Eww mixing. L
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (KJV) Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
Usa doesn't have a hypersonic missile and you need a nuclear power plant to power a electromagnetic catapult.
Yes we do Ruskie
We had hypersonic 60years before you commies did
You people cant even build a proper aircraft carrier let alone make a electromagnetic catapult ruski
It dawned on me why the narrator's voice bothers me so much - it reminds me of Justin Trudeau's speech patterns, an overdramatic and stylized 'breathy' delivery. That, along with hyperbolic, fanciful propagandist scripts obviously written by some deep state alphabet agency and ominous background music makes me cringe every time I listen to these videos. I'm done.
All on paper, doesn't exist whereas Russian and Chinese weapons already do
Russia doesn't have hypersonics. China does.
Click Bait with little value information wise. bad and good.
Get your CGI in order if you're selling propaganda. This whole dark series has gone off the rails.