Why Does the US Not Have Supersonic ASMs? (Anti-Ship Missiles)

Share
Embed
  • Published on Mar 2, 2019
  • Russia has got them... so does Japan, India, Taiwan, and others. So why doesn't the US?
    I started a merch store. Get cool products & help support the channel!
    teespring.com/stores/covertcabal
    For business inquiries/sponsorships - [email protected]
    If you'd like to help support me continue to create videos, you can do so here...
    Patreon (Monthly) - www.patreon.com/CovertCabal
    PayPayl (One Time Donations) - www.paypal.me/covertcabal
    Discord - discord.gg/E7p2Z2X
    Amazon Prime 30 Free Trial - amzn.to/2AiNfvJ
    Microphone I use = amzn.to/2zYFz1D
    Video Editor = amzn.to/2JLqX5o
    Military Aircraft Models = amzn.to/2A3NPxu
    Military Strategy Book = amzn.to/2AaqwST
    ----------------------------------
    Credits:
    Footage:
    Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    The NATO Channel
    Department of Defense (US)
    "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
    KCNA - North Korea State Media
    Music:
    BTS Prolog - Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com
    3m54 Picture
    Author: Allocer
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
    Moskit Missile Picture
    Author: Jno~commonswiki
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
    SOM missile Picture
    Author: Noblemouse
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
    Kh-22 Picture
    Author: Anton Borodin
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
    XASM-3 Picture
    Author: Hunini
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en
    Hsiung Feng III Picture
    Author Xuan Shisheng
    creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

Comments • 3 649

  • Luffaman
    Luffaman 44 minutes ago

    The U.S. Bainbridge (mfg 1960 est) can hit another ship at 300 miles. FALSE NEWS

  • Luffaman
    Luffaman 47 minutes ago

    Supersonic means "faster than sound". I think 15,000 per hour is a little faster than 640. why start with a d**^ LIE.

  • Jack Frost
    Jack Frost 3 hours ago

    Military channel with no robot voice and using meter and kilometer? Insta like and subcribe

  • THE LION KNIGHT
    THE LION KNIGHT 12 hours ago

    Russia has Hypersonic now bro and they have no trade off.

  • marc bell
    marc bell 19 hours ago +1

    The US under Reagan bankrupt thr Soviet Union. The Soviets built a working anti missile defense. The US bankrupt itself as well however because the US dollar was the strongest currency, it could print money causing rampant inflation. If countries switch to a basket of currencies to replace the almighty dollar, the US is screwed.

  • Max Havelaar
    Max Havelaar Day ago

    The speed at which China builds anythng, will put the US into 2-nd seat. Trump is the last arrogant US president and Israel midgeons Pompeo and Bolton.

  • The Asian Dictator

    Can you do a video on Taiwan

  • Carlos Danger
    Carlos Danger Day ago

    1:53
    WhY dOn'Y yOu KeEp YoUr PolItIcS To YoUrSelF Pls!? No one is interested in your fake newz.

  • TheKeithvidz
    TheKeithvidz Day ago

    The supersonic missiles speed make them hard for air defense missiles to hit.

  • Janet Cameron
    Janet Cameron 2 days ago

    The USA has over the horizon radar. Hit ships you can't see.

  • Richard Carnrike AX
    Richard Carnrike AX 2 days ago

    I think we should have a sub sonic missile that would gain distance then open up n out of it would be a dozen small fast missils.

  • Mark Outlaw
    Mark Outlaw 4 days ago

    And we are the biggest and the baddest military in the world why would they show off you ever heard up the element of surprise. And why would Donald Trump show up on Military stuff on the 4th of July anyway don't we got better and bigger things to do with that money instead of throwing it away?

  • joe clark
    joe clark 5 days ago

    US is sounding weak

  • Scott Holliday
    Scott Holliday 6 days ago

    SIMPLE. BECAUSE OBAMA WAS TOO BUSY SELLING US OUT....... RUSSIA COULD DESTROY US AT THE MOMENT....

  • Yunathan rasil Tuskaluza Albeyh

    That's what the rail gun is for

  • erik garcia
    erik garcia 6 days ago

    We do have supersonic missiles what we don’t have is hypersonic.

  • tony costanzo
    tony costanzo 7 days ago

    The us is the most evil nation on earth '

  • Jayseal ENDURO
    Jayseal ENDURO 8 days ago

    Because They have more advanced than super sonic ASM and speed isn't always the answer

  • Saeed
    Saeed 8 days ago

    Because they can’t make one.

  • derek melton
    derek melton 8 days ago

    Per the earth not being flat can you explain laser guided long range missiles? The ship keeps its target at 100 miles away painted w a laser. Anybody?

  • UFOlogist
    UFOlogist 8 days ago

    Silly Humans ask silly questions... Ships do not move supersonic and therefore do not need a supersonic weapon to destroy. They simply need be STEALTH.
    Do you think their "supersonic" missiles can outrun a 150 Gigawatt Laser beam?

  • Phillip Taylor
    Phillip Taylor 8 days ago

    False on radar ranges, seriously false!

  • 鼓嘶鸣
    鼓嘶鸣 9 days ago

    To against bully with high tech military, swamp strategy is better. because 200 small boat may be still cheaper than one big navy ship. I use bully with reason, those Navy ships are likely harassing people in someone's front yards.

  • 鼓嘶鸣
    鼓嘶鸣 9 days ago

    Cruise at slow until at distance where it can accelerate to top speed at around 31 miles from target. SO enemy will have less time to react.

    • 鼓嘶鸣
      鼓嘶鸣 8 days ago

      @UFOlogist "All Zumwalt have 150 Gigawatt laser," while it has electric drive Integrated Propulsion System with 78-megawatts of on-board electrical power??????????????

    • 鼓嘶鸣
      鼓嘶鸣 8 days ago

      @UFOlogist ,good, how many ships you need to carry the equipment to produce 150 Gigawatt

    • UFOlogist
      UFOlogist 8 days ago

      That won't help when the 150 Gigawatt laser fires from 68 miles out instantly vaporising it's target.

  • Александр Шумихин

    A friend of my boss's brother says that Russia has super-hyper-mega-secret hypersonic rockets ... which shoot lasers ... purple lasers. How do you like that, Ilon Musk?

  • Александр Шумихин

    The video is too long, and the answer is obvious: CAUZE WE HUZ LAZERZ N SHEEIT

  • Joseph Atnip
    Joseph Atnip 10 days ago

    We've been developing lasers probably along the same lines as Israel's iron dome but without rockets using lasers that travel at the speed of light......

  • Eric Losh
    Eric Losh 10 days ago

    Awesome video, Reddit brought me here and now I’m subbed

  • Jim The Raspberry
    Jim The Raspberry 10 days ago

    That’s the first time I’ve ever heard an American say that the earth isn’t flat... The bible botheribg tosspots!

  • Dingle McCringleberry
    Dingle McCringleberry 11 days ago +9

    US: *"Keep ur missiles to yerself..."*


    *"CUZ WE GOT LAZERS! YeA BaBY!"*

  • Buro Dackel
    Buro Dackel 12 days ago

    It's simple. It's not doctrinal it all has to do with money. Missiles are cheap, last for a long time with no maintenance and can be easily stored.
    Aircraft on the other hand are missile delivery systems which are incredibly maintenance intensive, require specialist training to maintain and operate with a large logistics chain. Aircraft also have a lifespan, have fixed major maintenance do not exceed hours and rarely the operator nation has the capability- or the permission without voiding warranties. They have many complex subsystems which require specialist facilities for maintenance and testing by specialist troops- all of this is WASTED money- because now more money has been assigned to non lethal elements of an armed force.
    Aircraft also mean jobs- alias votes- allowing the US politicians to be caught by the military industrial complex to produce an outrageously expensive weapon that could not be killed for political reasons- the F35.
    The US has been bamboozled by "stealth"- nothing in the air that has a density greater than air or with any metallic component is invisible. It is simply not scientific to claim otherwise. Radar negating angles merely reflect LESS than a conventional cross section- but they still reflect. Radar absorption is only possible for segments of bandwidth- for some bandwidth they do not attenuate the "ping", on others certain frequencies are attenuated.
    Old UHF band is perfectly serviceable to detect any "stealth object" with a personal computer running anti-clutter algorithms. There are many radar companies globally marketing passive
    radar that can detect stealth objects of 0.5m^2 radar cross section beyond 200km range.
    Missiles free up that otherwise expensive training system for specialist maintenance personnel for actual combat. Specialized combat training is much simpler, has a lower IQ intake threshold and requires much lower mathematical literacy and numeracy to attain high performance. In other words- being less reliant on aircraft frees up a much larger portion of actual combatants, and you don't have to be a brainiac to fire a gun shoot a mortar, aim an RPG- all of which cheap, robust and hold the ground.
    Aircraft carriers and aircraft should be seen as totemic- they are prestige weapons. Their combat effectiveness is questionable. They can attain air dominance- but aerial dominance dues not equate to victory in the land warfare aspect. this was proven in Vietnam. Then again in Iraq and probably when US quits Afghanistan.
    Soviets proved much cheaper, simpler, more robust, less capital could be allocated on the Fast Missile Boat (essentially an upgrade of the German Fast Torpedo E-boots vs the corollary Royal Navy) negating the multi-billion dollar footprint of a carrier fleet. The carrier is now the battleship of days past- too dear to risk in war.
    The loss of a major capital ship militarily may be militarily marginal, but it has profound psychological (morale) and propaganda effect
    ..
    Missiles can be launched in volleys, not single shots US ships are still not able to cope with saturation tactics.
    You really need to read up on Moskit, Granit and Yakhont. Yakhont skims and is maneuvrable.
    The GQM Coyote was a successor to the MA-31 target- itself a Kh-31defined by the navy as Supersonic Sea-Skimming Target.

  • Power Off
    Power Off 12 days ago +3

    You just pissed off a lot of flat Earthers... LMAO "It flies low to the ground because the Earth is not what?"

    • Power Off
      Power Off 6 days ago

      @kriz0826 lol

    • kriz0826
      kriz0826 8 days ago +1

      Power Off id actually like to see a flat earthers rebuttal to that tho they just cant lol

  • Free The Plane
    Free The Plane 13 days ago +1

    utter nonsense i made a video recording of a bridge in Denmark 58 km away the hole bottom of the bridge is visible the Earth is a Flat Plane The end there is no such thing as a visual horisont you cant see for ever because of dim fog and cloud and water in the air
    get of the jessuit fake spinball and relearn the Nature As it is have a nice day belive less investigate more

    • x d
      x d 8 days ago

      Free The Plane you fucking idiot please listen to high school physics.

  • Craig Wolfe
    Craig Wolfe 13 days ago

    Consider these countries with the hypersonic missiles. They have slow long-range cruise missiles too. How about a ballistic missile? Who you think is making the chips?

  • Elton Westley
    Elton Westley 13 days ago

    Heard it can fly a few meters over sea level

  • Elton Westley
    Elton Westley 13 days ago

    What about the indian missile

  • Benjamin Smith
    Benjamin Smith 14 days ago

    The US has largely been facing populations opposed to their illegal and immoral occupations.
    This guy has no idea. He does not want to admit the extreme danger that the US has put itself in. The country is very vulnerable due to its own very aggressive global stance.
    The issue with the US is that they spend massive amounts on weapons bought through companies given insane amounts of cash to develop them. Companies that only goal is to squeeze them for everything they can. They also therefore have production spread out all over the place. Look at the situation with Turkey buying S400 than the US 'equivalent'.
    The Russians and Chinese in comparison have kept their defense industries largely under government control. Hence their tech is cheaper to build and they do not waste resource. They simply have much more control over their respective military industrial complexes. So for a fraction they are developing better and more dangerous weapons. Hence why countries are starting to buy S400 and SU-35s from Russia rather than US hardware.
    It is somewhat sad and ironic though even poetic that unfettered capitalism is leading the USA's own destruction.

  • vDarkness Falls
    vDarkness Falls 14 days ago

    Play any Titanfall 1 lately??

  • ImInTheWittyCommittee
    ImInTheWittyCommittee 14 days ago

    DID YOU JUST SAY THE EART IS NOT FLAT!

  • kw19193
    kw19193 14 days ago

    You missed on any mention of particle beam weaponry which the US possesses but talks about as little as possible publicly. And it is safe to assume that if US naval vessels have this capability then it is also available in some kind of orbital or sub-orbital platform. It goes a long way to explaining why American officials haven't hyperventilated, which they never hesitated doing in decades past, about the development of hyper-sonic weapons by the Russians and Chinese. Cheers!

  • Ant Bully
    Ant Bully 15 days ago

    American needs to step up

  • Titus Veridius
    Titus Veridius 15 days ago

    Soviet naval doctrine was not defensive in the way you describe it. The Russians may have used defensive terminology in the text, but it's a stylistic determination more than anything. Russian doctrine was to push out first day of war and launch a catastrophic missile strike on whatever US battle-group was closest in the Baltic/Black Sea/Far-East. (this can hardly be considered "defensive" in most uses of the word) It was defensive in the sense that Russian naval forces would stay in the theaters they lived in and would be trying to prevent the Americans from supporting ground operations (through short concentrated missile strikes) rather than trying to conduct it's own joint naval operations to support and enable the ground war (which American carrier battle groups, TLAMs, and Jointness concepts promised). It was area access denial through violently killing the enemy in small numbers of massive strikes (though the Russians have never used the words "Area access denial"). It was still an offensive strategy. I believe this CSIS video discusses it. This is still the Russian naval strategy but they are using more small boats now because Russian military shipbuilding decayed for 20 years. ruclip.com/video/mBf2nMVeWps/video.html

  • Cee Dee
    Cee Dee 16 days ago +2

    The US have them, & other military goods you don't know about either

  • Nick Swisterski
    Nick Swisterski 16 days ago

    Wasn't the earth suppose to be flat?

  • Gavin McAuley
    Gavin McAuley 16 days ago +1

    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?

  • Shahin Moghadam
    Shahin Moghadam 16 days ago

    Did you say Iraq and Libya I had no idea they had navy forces but I guess the several boats that they would qualify as a navy force !!

  • Shahin Moghadam
    Shahin Moghadam 16 days ago

    What is horizon calculation and how does a navy ship goes upward in the ocean like you show on your illustration I think you need to study more on this subject before making your case and convince your more intelligent viewers. Fast talking doesn’t convince an informed viewer !!!!!!

    • x d
      x d 8 days ago

      Shahin Moghadam because the earth is a sphere

  • Alex Torvi
    Alex Torvi 16 days ago

    Because we have rail guns and other classified weapons

  • Lamar Curry
    Lamar Curry 16 days ago

    I was thinking that u.s. have missiles that can be launched and throughout several more we need more offensive weapons like a missile system that can shoot probably at least 20 in 10 seconds

  • Scooterbum
    Scooterbum 16 days ago

    We have MASERS. Speed of light energy weapons that take out missals and stationary targets from land, sea or air. As well as an old tech, but very interesting "Rod from God". An orbit based smart weapon that uses no explosives no engines. It is somewhat of a titanium telephone pole. Yeah, I know (LOL) well think about it coming at you from space at an incredible asteroid like speed. Its inertial impact is comparable to a tactical nuke and is excellent on deep bunkers. And I hate this one....Its a directed energy weapon. A souped up version of the active denial system used for riot control. A quick blast from this device sends the target running for relief from a burning skin sensation. One was tested on a 6 story deep underground bunker that sent the occupants running out in evacuation. I suppose it would be like being in a microwave oven.
    This tech has been released on MSM, Imagine what they are holding back. Ben Rich, designer of the SR71 and CEO of Skunk Works publicly stated we have things in the desert you could not have imagined. If you saw it in Star Wars or Star Trek, we've been there and done that or decided it wasn't worth the bother.(and) we have the technology to take ET home. He calls this Un Funded Opportunities. (UFO). You can verify ll this information on Duck Duck Go (don't use google, ever) and RUclip.

  • Feels
    Feels 16 days ago

    What a cool channel. Awesome video.

  • DOUBLEDEFENSE
    DOUBLEDEFENSE 17 days ago

    Cause we have a Railgun coming GAME OVER

  • Billy Severt
    Billy Severt 17 days ago +1

    Because this isn't the 60's anymore, when electronic warfare was in it's infancy, and speed was paramount. Supersonic ordinance is short ranged and easy to detect and/or jam
    Why we don't have them? Because we have far more accurate and stealthy high subsonic ASM's with three to four times the range of anyone else...
    and considering the number of targets we've taken out with systems such as the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles... a much higher success rate as well

  • retard American People

    😂😂😂😂😂😂👉👉🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖓🖓🖓🖓🖓

  • Mike Hogue
    Mike Hogue 17 days ago

    Good vids.

  • Andrew Polkowski
    Andrew Polkowski 17 days ago +7

    Directed Energy Weapons. Way faster then sound. No missile is safe.

  • Dmitri Kozlowsky
    Dmitri Kozlowsky 18 days ago

    US Navy's main anti-ship weapon is the attack submarine and its MK48-ADCAP torpedo.

  • Michael P
    Michael P 18 days ago

    War is a gift to the MIC.

  • philps bisso
    philps bisso 18 days ago

    bullshit the earth is flat you moron

    • x d
      x d 8 days ago

      philps bisso please elaborate

  • doctim111
    doctim111 19 days ago +1

    We should have a better anti-ship missiles but on the other hand we have killer satellites and Rods from God.

  • Ozzy Guy
    Ozzy Guy 19 days ago

    Because they spent all their money trying to get the F35 to work...

  • The God Of Awesome
    The God Of Awesome 19 days ago

    Amazing video! Very informative.
    But you forgot about the BRAHMOS Anti Ship Missile, which is sea skimming, is long range, and not a very big or hefty missile as you said about the others. What defense the the US possibly have against this since this was a joint venture between India and Russia, Russia being the US's adversary.
    Would appreciate a response 😊
    Keep up the good work!
    Cheers

  • luca kro
    luca kro 19 days ago +1

    Anti shit missiles

  • john kenney
    john kenney 19 days ago +1

    The US has both Scram Jet fighters & hypersonic technology. I guarantee the US has that covered.

  • Aren't I Adorable
    Aren't I Adorable 19 days ago

    30000 Meters my Butt......How about taking that Kilometers and shove it. The Metric system is a made up BullShit system.
    It's stupid , can't even imagine what thousand meteres is. A mile is 5285 foot and is easier to understand that that stupid Metric System....
    A foot is 12 inch's a mile is 5285 foot easier to understand you intellectual idiot!

    • x d
      x d 8 days ago

      The metric system uses multiples of 10 so if you can’t understand that then there’s no hope

    • Scooterbum
      Scooterbum 16 days ago

      ETs use the metric system.

    • ivan ivanov
      ivan ivanov 19 days ago

      imperialist

  • Mr Anderson
    Mr Anderson 19 days ago +1

    There is no horizon. Lol. Earth is flat. Binoculars can prove it.

  • Bull Lea
    Bull Lea 19 days ago

    with today tech I really , but I mean really really doubt that the curvature of the earth could be a problem for detection of an incoming missile .

    • The God Of Awesome
      The God Of Awesome 19 days ago

      It is, if you don't have satellites and/or other ships or AEWACS in the area.

  • Krisitan Sterjo
    Krisitan Sterjo 20 days ago

    Bullshit Russian build Bromos is supersonic and flys just as low as the Yankees one

  • George Gordner
    George Gordner 20 days ago

    I knew when I worked for the NSWC why I love my country and could never knowingly betray, which is more than I can say tor Aldrich Ames and his wife who both did time in jail. Oh and Geroge Hanson.

  • Norman Mattson
    Norman Mattson 21 day ago

    Folks don't let our corrupt politicians drag us in to a war thousands of miles from home. Money better spent on our crumbling nation.