Do you give any credence to the performance capabilities of the AVANGARD HGV??

Yeah too bad it's so big that it failed last week. So no Sarmat, but if you can only build 10 per year than US is not worried about any missile China or Russia can launch! 😮

It doesn't even work reliably yet

I’ll take any proven technology over a BS system from Prussia any day.. bye thankyouuuuu 😂

Full of bull crap

World most deadly airborne attack system 😂😂😂

China numbah 1

figment of Putin's imagination

@@jasonrist6582🏳 😂😂

@@jasonrist6582 It's real. you can check

How do u know bro Can i get more info

@@AnkushOfficial4962 It means that radar cannot detect small warheads at high altitudes

Nah, ballistic can & are mostly shot down in the endstage, even hypersonic ones (cuz they have to slow down). It might depend on the system how they would intercept it but different systems can do it: Aegis system (ships), Patriot sams & THAAD. Satellites on other hand can detect the incoming missile & also determine which are real or which are decoy.

@@bekeneel No system can shoot down ICBMs in end stage. Don't be in wrong perception

@@bekeneel There was only 1 successful ICBM intercept via Aegis. That's not a ICBM defence system, but only for midrange BMs. For Patriot and THAAD there are no tests done, but these systems also are not designed for ICBMs. GMD on the other hand had 20 ICBM tests, 10 of them successful. So, only GMD is a theoretically viable defence against ICBMs. Of course, under realistic conditions even the GMD would fail spectacularly for multiple reasons, one of them I mentioned above. Others include fake warheads, chaff, mylar balloons, the number of ICBMs that would be launched in a realistic scenario and many more. The terminal phase is less than 1 minute, more like 30 seconds. There is no time to intercept and the slowing down of the warheads is insignificant, they are still coming at 20 Mach. THAAD is designed to intercept 6 Mach. Patriot is just a scam, it cannot intercept Scud BMs reliably, let alone ICBMs. Satellites have no ability to identify fake warheads or decoys. That is purportedly done by radars, like the LRDR, however no tests have been conducted that show that this stuff works. In short, all of this technology is a scam and there is no defence from ICBMs.

India has own navigation system, irns

"love" is a strong emotion for something that's design to murder thousands and thousands..

@@nimmha6708 Millions, not thousands. It is still loveable though.

@@endcapitalism5274 "Millions" reminds me of the number of death's your profile picture's dude is responsible for.... But capitalism is worse right? Can I ask you... If you want to "End Capitalism", what do you want? What is better in your opinion?

@@nimmha6708 You should stop reading Mein Kampf my Nazi friend and learn some history, it was not Stalin, but Nazi Germany that killed millions. Fortunately this time dozens of thermonuclear warheads are aimed at German cities, just in case Germany tries something stupid again, like in WW1 and WW2.

@@endcapitalism5274 F*ck Hitler, F*ck Stalin. Both are responsible for millions of deaths.

MILES

He did not forget, just different game lol

@@shabotages What game ?

The Agni-V is a very inferior ICBM compared to the ICBM of other countries... India's largest ICBM Agni-V can carry 1,500 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 5,000 km. The Russian ICBM RS-28 Sarmat known as "Satan II", can carry 10,000 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 18,000 kilometres. China's ICBM The Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) can carry 2,500 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 13,000 kilometres. USA's Trident D5 submarine ICBM can carry 2,800 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 12,000 kilometres. ..

@World Latest Technology(WLT) Lungi u have Lungi flying kang loo missiles. 🤷‍♂️😝

@@WR-NC-ASPL There r other missiles as well in the video & ur info on Agni 5 is incomplete. It's not inferior, its affordable bulk production missile with hypersonic speed of mach 25. So technically unstoppable. Apart from Sarmat no other missiles has that speed. All Chinese & US missiles has 15 - 17 mach.

What if it falls on your head while you eating popcorn 🤔🙄

Who ever made it was obsessed with Satan I guess .

​@@bipash_9720😆😆

Really, can you tell us why you favor those 3 missiles?

@@kirkschoolfield4173cuz it’s better than usa

This put me off the video so much lol

Yeah, I agree, what with the " MILES"😂😂😂

Dont worry....you will keep waiting like cold war era guys did

@@chrisivory121 Thanks for comment. After both US and Russia figured out mutual destruction was not in their best interests, their nuclear ambitions decreased. I won't hold my breath that we are heading into a nuclear war anytime soon. Ukraine might be a bargaining chip and Russia's flexing it's nuclear muscle is all bluster.

Most are 375 - 500 kilotons

@@j.d.604 Thanks for comment

They don't want to admit that North Korea is right up there with some of the big boys when it comes to Nuclear missiles.

couldn't feed their people but spends billions to rockets....

Those are 1st generation missiles compared to the Trident 2 which is the most powerful icbm missile in the world. Most accurate, holds the most mirvs, and is smaller than Russian or Chinese sub. Launched or any launched Intercontinental Ballistic Missile.

@@virginccyy7645 Trident is obsolete vs even Voievoda class not to speak to Bulava (sea) , Yars (land) and Sarmat and in China DF-21(sea), DF-26(land), DF-41 (appeox. similar to Sarmat) in North Koreea KH-15 ( Voievoda class) and KH-17 ( Sarmat class) and 1st stage Sarmat, DF-41, And KH can also launch Avangard (28+Mach), DF-17 (20+Mach) and similar undisclosed name glide hypersonic vehicle in PR North Korea ... And soon I presume this year Idiotic West will see Burevesnik.... Nuclear hypersonic cruise missile unlimited range for 6monts non stop drive low altitude, stratosphere and space capable, nuclear 2+Megaton, fully maneuverability...

​@@garfield12344уже год прошёл, долго она добирается, должно быть даёт концерты по городам Европы😂😂😂

Amen 🙏🏿

Yeah and no God is going to save humanity when we start ending life with nuclear weapons. all gods be praised. :(

Because they've number 1 before there was even a chart. The problem with all the previous fallen empires is that they lacked nuclear carriers and nuclear submarines, not to mention air superiority, expensive drones, you know, stuff on Ukraine's Christmas list. I feel bad for the guy declaring war on the west. Even if they invaded the US, the citizens have more guns than the military...

@@danhtran6401 enough of this wet dream US can't defend against hypersonic missiles. And Texas power grid died from a winter. The American people are divided by politics race religion and class nobody trust each other. The economy will not sustain a war it barely sustained covid.

@@marshalljulie3676 lol....go take your meds Julie...

@@danhtran6401 the citizens? LOL. 40% of them are morbidly obese, another 30% are overweight. Good Luck with Americans trying to fight a prolonged guerilla warfare.

@@carmilliadokklafar9250 sadly there are too many privileged people but I assure you, that's not the military, qualifications and training is required....but I know what you're saying.... it's okay, we need people like them to sit at desks and innovate.....not everyone has the stomach for wars

I think it should be brought back.

Minuteman III has always carried three missiles. Peacekeeper was awesome to watch launch though.

@@jaybee9269 From the National Museum of The United States Air Force Website. "Though Minuteman III can carry three warheads, each missile has been limited to one by international treaty since 2005"

@@dexterplameras3249 >> Thanks, I stand corrected. So they’re almost pointless. Midgetman was pretty pointless except in its mobility.

😂😂😂

They are typical Western mindset. We shouldn't care what they think or rank us. When war comes, it's the missile that answers, not these rankings

They're only good for parades

In North Korea

I don't think north korean missiles have much juice

Who knows

Russia and America

North Korea only has 3 missiles. US have 415 Minutemen 3 missiles and 14 Ohio Submarine carrying 24 Trident IIs missiles with 14 bombs each. No nation can even build an ICBM that can carry 10 let alone 14! That's how far US missile system is ahead of China and Russia who are still trying to build a missile with Tridents capabilities, but they can't

​@@virginccyy7645I think you missed the sarcasm lol

adimin is western i fear

The commentator is from west so no need ....but we move and no going back .....is obvious russia has the best icbm

Putting anything above Trident is bs. Its the best icbm in the world. Above Sarmat. Plus US have 312 missiless, not 5 or 10.

@@virginccyy7645 Really? Pray tell, how many hypersonics does it carry? Doesn't have the throw weight of an SS-28 either. Trident > Buluva. That much is true. Minuteman does not belong on this list. Try to be objective here. First law of Sun Tzu and all. Know thy enemy and know thyself.

The Minuteman ICBM silos are designed to soak up the bulk of a Russian (or Chinese) first strike. One warhead per missile, and one missile per hardened silo. The silos are hardened against anything except a direct hit, and they are spread out enough to require a direct hit for each and every silo. For the Russians to be sure, they would likely need to assign multiple warheads to every silo. There are 400 silos spread across 4 bases in the center of the country, which in theory would require 1,000 warheads to destroy at the very least. START limits both Russia and the US to 1,550 deployed warheads, which means Russia would need to expend at least 63% of its allotted warheads on taking out the ICBM fields in an area with low population, low military value and at a location that maximizes the warning time for the US.. No need for a super advanced missile when it is largely designed to be used as cannon fodder.. Even if the Russians take out every silo, that still leaves the 14 Ohio class submarines out on permanent patrol and their 1,152 warheads unaccounted for by the Russians, as well as 80 B-2 or B-52 strategic bombers capable of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles or nuclear gravity bombs like the B61.. The Trident II missiles on the 14 American Ohio class submarines and 4 British Vanguard class submarines are arguably the most advanced and reliable ICBM’s in the world and represent the bulk of the “real” deterrent capabilities for the US (and all of the UK’s). Minuteman III is not an obsolete missile by any means. It was designed to (and still can) carry 3 warheads, it is fully MIRV capable. It only carries one warhead currently because the total deployed warhead count is limited by treaty. It is better to have 400 warheads on 400 spread out missiles rather than having 400 warheads on only 167 missiles, though the second option sounds a bit cheaper to operate. The Russians have essentially chosen the latter of those two positions, their launchers are mostly road mobile rather than being positioned in hardened silos. But, USA's main nuclear deterrent are the submarine launched UGM-133A Trident II missiles. Each missile can carry up to eight 100 kiloton nuclear warheads. Because the Trident II SLBM makes up the majority of warheads and is faster, just as accurate and has a longer range than the systems currently in use by Russia (including the proposed specs of the Sarmat). The Minuteman 3 makes an easier target because it is land based in silos whereas the Ohio SSBN’s are mobile all around the world.. Even if Russia destroys all of USA's land based ICBM, there are 14 USA nuclear submarines remaining hidden in the sea in different areas of the world, that carry total of 1,152 nuclear warheads. These 1,152 nuclear warheads from the 14 USA nuclear submarines are enough to destroy everyone of 1,117 cities and towns in Russia. How many nuclear missile subs does the U.S. have? USA has 14 ballistic missile submarines. The Ohio class of nuclear-powered submarines includes the United States Navy's 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs).. Do U.S. submarines carry nuclear missiles? Each submarine can carry 24 submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) designated Trident D5 with range of 12,000 km and each missile can carry up to eight 100 kiloton nuclear warheads (about 30 times the explosive force as the Hiroshima bomb). The USA submarines can launch these nuclear missiles while still submerged in the sea without surfacing. Assuming an average of twelve operational submarines with 24 launch tubes each and four warheads per missile, these USA submarines carry total of 1,152 nuclear warheads. While the total number carried by Russian submarines is 624 nuclear warheads. Russia’s operational nuclear force consists of 11 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), separated into three classes. The Delta and Boreii, the current active classes, can carry up to 16 SLBMs (the SS-N-23 “Skiff” and the Bulava SS-N-32) that are capable of delivering up to 624 nuclear warheads.. If you add the nuclear 225 warheads from the 4 UK submarines and 290 warheads from 4 French submarines along with the 1,152 warheads from 14 USA submarines, then the total number of nuclear warheads from NATO submarines itself will be above 1500. That will be the end of Russia. Just the nuclear warheads from NATO submarines are enough to destroy everyone of the 1,117 cities and towns in Russia. No need to launch any NATO land based ICBM or nuclear bomber aircraft.

NATO's has 400 Minuteman III land based ICBM missiles and 464 Submarine launched Trident II D5 SLBM Missiles (336 missiles from 14 USA submarines, 64 missiles from 4 British submarines, 64 missiles from 4 French submarines) with total of 6065 nuclear warheads on 914 nuclear missiles with many MIRV Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles. It is enough to destroy every city and town in Russia. There will be 6 nukes each for everyone of 1,117 cities and towns in Russia. While Russia will have to use its 6225 nuclear warheads to destroy 30 NATO countries. NATO has 914 ICBM including submarine SLBM, while Russia has only 491 ICBM including submarine SLBM.

Russia needs large ICBM like Sarmat because majority of Russia's nuclear warheads are in land based ICBM. But, USA does not need a huge missile like Sarmat. Because, majority of USA's nuclear warheads are in it's 14 Ohio class nuclear submarines. USA's main nuclear strike force is it's 14 Ohio class nuclear submarines that carries 20[a] × Trident II D5 SLBM range 11,300 km; with up to 12 MIRVed W76 or W88 (475 ktTNT) nuclear warheads each. USA has a Total of 1,142 nuclear warheads in 14 Ohio class submarines. Unlike Russia's land based ICBM, these submarines are always invisible and can launch these nuclear missiles underwater without surfacing. The New START arms control treaty, limits both the U.S. and Russia to 800 ICBM launchers or bombers and 1,550 deployed warheads. Russia is deploying it's 1550 warheads in 491 ICBM launchers including submarines. While USA is deploying it's 1550 warheads in 736 ICBM launchers including submarines. So, because USA has more number of ICBM than Russia, USA does not need a large ICBM like Sarmat that can carry 10 warheads together, because USA already has 400 Minuteman III ICBMs and 14 nuclear-capable Ohio-class submarines carrying 336 Trident ICBM. So, USA has already reached the maximum allowed number of ICBM under The New START arms control treaty. But, Russia has fewer number of ICBM than USA. So, Russia is putting more nuclear warheads in each ICBM and creating huge ICBM like Sarmat that can carry 10 warheads each. Sarmat is simply a large ICBM, the largest ICBM anyone has ever bothered to build. The three-stage, solid-fuel missile is 115 feet long and 9.8 feet wide with a total, fueled weight of 458,000 pounds. The missile can boost up to ten tons into low-Earth orbit, including, “Ten large warheads. Sarmat’s huge capacity is a double-edged sword. If the missile encounters a mechanical problem and fails to launch or gets intercepted by Anti-missile system, that’s ten nuclear weapons lost for Russia and a large hole in Moscow’s targeting plan. Russia’s ability to use Sarmat will also be constrained by the New START arms control treaty, which limits both the U.S. and Russia to 800 missile launchers or bombers and 1,550 deployed warheads.. Just 150 Sarmat missiles, each maxed out with 10 warheads, could carry almost all of Russia’s allowable 1500 nukes, leaving just 50 for the rest of Moscow’s nuclear triad, including mobile ICBMs such as the truck-mounted Topol-M, Borei-class missile submarines, and strategic heavy bombers. The constraints of New START make it likely Russia will build only a limited number of Sarmats in order to beat down U.S. missile defenses, giving the rest of Moscow’s nuclear forces a freer hand.. Instead of developing a huge ICBM like Sarmat that can carry 10 MIRVs with a blast yield of 750 kT each, USA already has 400 minuteman ICBM that can carry 3 warheads of 170-kiloton each. The majority of USA's nuclear warheads are in it's 14 nuclear submarines. The Ohio class of nuclear-powered submarines includes the United States Navy's 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) .. At 24 Trident II missiles apiece, each Ohio-class submarines carries 20[a] × Trident II D5 SLBM with up to 12 MIRVed W76 or W88 (475 ktTNT) nuclear warheads each. So, it always better to attack the enemy with 10 minuteman ICBM carrying 1 nuclear warhead each like USA is doing. Than attacking the enemy with only 1 Sarmat ICBM carrying 10 warheads like Russia is doing.. A single Sarmat missile armed with 10 warheads could target a large area. But, 10 minuteman ICBM will produce more destruction in Russia as it will target 10 separate areas and destroy more area.. So, there is no advantage in building in large ICBM like Sarmat that can carry 10 nuclear warheads together.

No Winners but ALL Losers

Amen Brother looking for the next journey

Agni-V is a very inferior ICBM compared to the ICBM of other countries... India's largest ICBM Agni-V can carry 1,500 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 5,000 km. The Russian ICBM RS-28 Sarmat known as "Satan II", can carry 10,000 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 18,000 kilometres. China's ICBM The Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) can carry 2,500 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 13,000 kilometres. USA's Trident D5 submarine ICBM can carry 2,800 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 12,000 kilometres.

@@WR-NC-ASPL lol agni 5 missile range is 8000km

@@whysoserious7553 .. . even if Agni has 8,000 km range, all the other missiles in the list have over 12,000 km range and so can hit any part of the earth. Whereas Agni can hit only Asia and some parts of Africa. Agni cannot hit other continents.. Also, other ICBM can carry 1000 kilogram warheads more than what Agni can carry. So, Agni is an useless missile compared to the other missiles in this list..

@@WR-NC-ASPL Watch news varient of agni V..

@@MonuSharma-nz2pf .. what is the range of the new variant

What is his favorite one?

yes because even 20k nukes aren't enough in this world! -.-

India's Agni-V is a very inferior ICBM compared to the ICBM of other countries... India's largest ICBM Agni-V can carry 1,500 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 5,000 km. The Russian ICBM RS-28 Sarmat known as "Satan II", can carry 10,000 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 18,000 kilometres. China's ICBM The Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) can carry 2,500 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 13,000 kilometres. USA's Trident D5 submarine ICBM can carry 2,800 kilogram nuclear payload, Operational range: 12,000 kilometres.

@@WR-NC-ASPL 😁😁😁 you believe on paper information haaa. Chines experts believe this agni 5 range is 8500km+ few days ago India conduct the test (hybrid vriyant of agni 5) . Some experts says agni 5 have (mirv) capability . And agni 5 have capital to lift 2.5 ton warhead 😁😁 means this missile is capable to lift 3-6( 300 killoton nuclear warheads). Means 1 agni 5 missile is capable to destroy whole Pakistan. And surya icbm , agni 6 ICBM is in underdevelopment. Bye

@@naveenmishra4033 .. even if Agni has 8,500 km range, all the other missiles in the list have over 12,000 km range and so can hit any part of the earth. Whereas Agni can hit only Asia and some parts of Africa. Agni cannot hit other continents. Also, other ICBM can carry 1000 kilogram warheads more than what Agni can carry. So, Agni is an useless missile compared to the other missiles in this list..

@@WR-NC-ASPL sir india have only one enemy and this enemy is China and agni 5 is capibal to hit entire china. Agni 5 cover whole Asia, 2/3 Africa,2/3 europe, 90% russia and this missile accuracy is very dangerous 15-20 m cep with 300 killoton mirv warhead 😉

@@naveenmishra4033 .. But, China's ICBM are much superior than India's ICBM in operational range, warhead payload and MIRV. China's Dongfeng-41 (DF-41, CSS-20) has.. Operational range 13,000 kilometres (8,100 mi)[1].. Maximum speed Mach 25 (30,600 km/h; 19,000 mph; 8.51 km/s).. Warhead up to 10 MIRVs, 2,500 kg (5,500 lb) Agni-V has Operational range: 7,000-8,000 kilometres (4,300-5,000 mi) · Terminal phase: Mach 24 (29,400 km/h; 18,300 mph; 8.17 km/s) ... Warhead up to 3 MIRVs, 1,500 kg.. ICBM with nuclear weapons need not have accuracy in meters because, the whole area of many kilometres is going to be destroyed ..

One sarmat will completely destroy your country 😅

@@deanmoxom1330 Yeeeeey. And you believe anyone would survive? You think there's no payback? =/

Not in production like many Indian 'plans'