Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Fri Mar 29 10:22:54 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / If the UK wants war...
LazyCommunist
Member
Thu May 11 04:56:31
Our answer to this will be the end of the UK!

http://edi...shadow-cruise-missiles-ukraine


The United Kingdom has supplied Ukraine with multiple Storm Shadow cruise missiles, giving Ukrainian forces a new long-range strike capability in advance of a highly anticipated counteroffensive against Russian forces, multiple senior Western officials told CNN.

The Storm Shadow is a long-range cruise missile with stealth capabilities, jointly developed by the UK and France, which is typically launched from the air. With a firing range in excess of 250km, or 155 miles, it is just short of the 185-mile range capability of the US-made surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, that Ukraine has long asked for.

Critically, the Storm Shadow has the range to strike deep into Russian-held territory in Eastern Ukraine. A Western official told CNN that the UK has received assurances from the Ukrainian government that these missiles will be used only within Ukrainian sovereign territory and not inside Russia. UK officials have made frequent public statements identifying Crimea as Ukrainian sovereign territory, describing it as “illegally annexed.”

The missile is “a real game changer from a range perspective,” a senior US military official told CNN and gives Kyiv a capability it has been requesting since the outset of the war. As CNN has reported, Ukraine’s current maximum range on US-provided weapons is around 49 miles.

The deployment of the missiles comes as Ukrainian forces prepare to launch a counteroffensive intended to retake Kremlin-held territory in the eastern and the southern parts of the country.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said his country still needs “a bit more time” before it launches the counteroffensive, in order to allow some more of the promised Western military aid to arrive in country.

“With [what we have] we can go forward and be successful,” Zelensky told European public service broadcasters in an interview published on Thursday. “But we’d lose a lot of people. I think that’s unacceptable.”

“So we need to wait. We still need a bit more time,” he added. Among the supplies Ukraine is still waiting for are armored vehicles – including tanks – which Zelensky said were “arriving in batches.”

This is not the first time Britain has gone further than the US in the weaponry it has been prepared to send to Ukraine. It was the first ally to announce it was sending modern Western tanks to Ukraine, in January pledging 14 Challenge 2 tanks before the US announced it would contribute M-1 Abrams tanks shortly after.

Earlier this year, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak signaled that Britain was considering sending long-range weapons.

“We must help Ukraine to shield its cities from Russian bombs and Iranian drones,” Sunak said at the Munich Security Conference on February 18. “And that’s why the UK will be the first country to provide Ukraine with longer-range weapons.”

And earlier this month the British government issued a procurement notice through the International Fund for Ukraine. The notice said the UK was inviting expressions of interest for buying “long-range strike” rockets or missiles by May 4, and potential suppliers would be contacted after a month. The notice stipulated “missiles or rockets with a range 100-300km; land, sea or air launch. Payload 20-490kg.”

US officials have repeatedly emphasized that they will continue supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes”, and while tens of billions of dollars’ worth of equipment have been provided, the embattled country has continued asking for more to defeat the Russian military, including longer-range missiles such as ATACMS.

However, the US has been cautious over the last year in providing weapons to Ukraine that could help them strike within Russian territory. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl told reporters in August that it is the US assessment Ukraine does not “currently require ATACMS to service targets that are directly relevant to the current fight.”

According to MBDA Missile Systems, the European company which manufactures the missile, the Storm Shadow is a “deep strike weapon” capable of “being operated day and night in all weathers,” that features an advanced navigation system to ensure accuracy.

“After launch, the weapon descends to terrain hugging altitude to avoid detection,” MBDA’s website states. “On approaching the target, its onboard infrared seeker matches the target image with the stored picture to ensure a precision strike and minimal collateral damage.”
jergul
large member
Thu May 11 07:02:10
Any reason to think it has higher survivability than kalibr missiles?
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 11 09:09:20
Maybe the filthy war criminal pootin shouldnt have used chemical weapons in the territory of the UK.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 11 09:26:45
http://twi...tatus/1656631600996548609?s=20

Rofl@russia and pillz.
murder
Member
Thu May 11 12:34:55

lol@subsoniccruisemissile

jergul
large member
Thu May 11 12:51:42
Sammy
Everybody is using cope cages these days. Quite effective against suicide drones.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 11 13:40:44
"Everybody is using cope cages these days. Quite effective against suicide drones."

By everyone jergul actually means russia.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu May 11 13:55:27
Also, its a t55.

Hahahahaha
obaminated
Member
Thu May 11 15:14:51
It's only half a century old.
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 03:34:17
I find it funny we have on the one hand "ROFL at subsonic missiles" but then also "ZOMG Ukraine got a shitty slow drone through three overlapping Pantisr batteries to hover over the dome of the kremlin, the very thing they were supposed to defend, before it was destroyed".

Storm Shadow - as pointed out by the UK Defence secretary - isn't as capable of Kalibr.

The question is how capable Russian air defences are.
williamthebastard
Member
Fri May 12 04:47:49
Its fun that Putin is spelled Poutine in France, for obvious reasons
williamthebastard
Member
Fri May 12 04:49:47
They should just start spelling it the way everyone else does
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 05:12:47
Seb
Drones are not exactly what SAMs are designed to shoot down. Electric engines for a tiny heat signal, a tiny RCS and so slow that they are rather easy to overshoot.

The missile game is one of attrition. Will enough missiles be shot down to make expending stockpiles a bad idea? High value targets are part of the equation, but a smaller part than you would think

Conversely, will shooting missiles degrade air defence assets fast enough to eventually allow air power to bear?

Both factors are muddied by tick-tock warriors and their ZOMG, look a drone over Kiev/Moscow. Rofl Ukraine/Russia fail.

Rofl@subsonic missiles stands. They are simply not reliable tools anymore.
seb
Member
Fri May 12 06:52:50
jergul:

" a tiny RCS"

The drone that "attacked the Kremlin" was assessed to be fixed wing - likely either a UJ-22 or Mugin 5 - the former has a 4.5 meter wingspan and 3.7m length and petrol powered and is un-optimised for minimising RCS.

I suspect storm shadow or Kalibr haVE a lower RCS - though may well have higher thermal signature.

If Russia's top of the line close in system designed for defeating munitions and protecting forces and civil buildings is prone to overshooting and missing a target such as this, I would assess storm shadow missions as "pretty survivable".

N.B. I continue to doubt he "attack" on the Kremlin was in fact undertaken by Ukraine.
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 07:14:22
BTW I suspect they will be used to drop the kerch bridge.
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 07:20:37
Seb
An Ukraine sponsored attack certainly.

Additionally approaches to the kreml is electronically and topographically challenging for detecting and targetting.

We know the Russian stuff is way better than what Ukraine has been successfully using. They are a couple of generations newer.

Storm shadows are about as survivable as kalibr would be my estimation. So, about 75% losses. Give or take.

Tick-tock warriors will make a huge deal of it, but survivability is the main reason I think the US is holding back on the longer range HIMAR missiles.

The main point is likely to tipsy-toe closer towards F-16 deliveries by way of munition types.

But hell, if the UK feels it has to cruise missiles to hand off, then go for it.
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 08:12:54
"Additionally approaches to the kreml is electronically and topographically challenging for detecting and targetting"

So perhaps a case of not so rofl for stealthy, ground hugging, subsonic cruise missiles after all?

This is the dissonance here.

On one hand you are saying that subsonic cruise missiles are all but obsolete.

On the other hand you are saying a lumbering, slow, petrol driven cruise missile can get all the way to one of the most heavily defended targets in Russia before being intercepted.

It that attack had been intended to actually blow a hole in the roof and had been conducted with a storm shadow, there wouldn't be a roof any more. Despite Moscow's air defense systems and the added pantsir systems they put in place.

Seb
Member
Fri May 12 08:14:32
"The main point is likely to tipsy-toe closer towards F-16 deliveries by way of munition types."

Quite probably. The political dimension you loudly pooh-poohed on the challengers.

But like the challengers, they still have military utility.

Hold the Kerch bridge at risk.

Seb
Member
Fri May 12 08:31:55
Hmm.

SM is full of Wagner folks freaking the fuck out at the Ukrainian probes around bakhmut.

jergul
large member
Fri May 12 08:40:41
Well, if you can figure out a way to launch cruise missiles from within Moscow (the drone travelled most of the way to the kreml in a crate), then sure. Expect lower numbers shot down. We know that combat losses is around 75% when using more conventional flight paths. So yes. rofl@subsonic missiles.

I would not advise an actual serious decapitation strike against a nuclear power. That could trigger all kinds of interesting things.

I pooh-poohed the challenger for combat value. Ukraine has gotten 600 MBTs so far to supplement the many 100 it started the conflict with. A handful does not make a difference, though contributes to the Frankenarmy effect of course.

It amazes me that people think Ukraine's war goals are realistic.

jergul
large member
Fri May 12 08:42:40
1900 MBTs Ukraine started the war with*
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 09:21:01
UJ 22 needs 100m of runway (lets say 60m then) to take off.

So the idea is that they smuggled something about as big as a cruise missile in a crate all the way to Moscow, and then secretly launched it on 60m of flat road, and nobody noticed this, it evaded all the air defences by flying low level until it was right over the dome.

Any particular reason why the longer range stealthy subsonic cruise missiles can't just do the same? I mean if a pantsir's radar systems can't detect a low, slow flying object over several km of noisy terrain, why do we think the S400's etc are going to be so good at detecting a stealthy low flying object doing the same?

"using more conventional flight paths"
Which is to say, not optimally exploiting the features that make it difficult to intercept.

If the Kremlin attack was Ukrainian it says terrible things about Russian air defence capabilities.

"I pooh-poohed the challenger for combat value"

14 tanks is 14 tanks - a company's worth - and the Challenger 2's still are good tanks. And more to the point, they unlocked the leopard 2s.
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 09:36:31
Seb
Any sports field would also do. The attack was not a deep penetration effort. A crate to somewhere close.

Ukraine has established that cruise missiles have poor survivability and Russia has significantly better and more air defences than Ukraine.

Ukraine sponsored. Operatives on the ground in Russia. Millions of Ukrainians live in Russia. You could CT it to operatives having sigint on radar system downtime if you like. But ultimately, it is just a drone. Drones and missiles get through Ukrainian air defences too.

Remind me 14 tanks is what fraction of 1500 tanks?
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 09:38:45
1500 tanks is also an underestimate. It does not include Russian donations to the Ukrainian MBT pool.
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 09:48:12
Anectdotally, 1 of 5 drones made it to the kremlin. 3 were found around moscow days earlier and 1 of 2 in the attack made it close enough to slightly damage the roof.

So 20%.

http://ukrjet.ua/eng#born

What a pretty crate!
murder
Member
Fri May 12 10:02:10

Not much point debating what will soon become evident. When stuff starts blowing up, everyone will know what happened.

jergul
large member
Fri May 12 10:07:02
Murder
Nobody is questioning if Ukraine can blow up stuff. It can. The question is more if it is worth it. A large fraction will be taken out on approach.

But if there is nothing better to do with missiles and drones, then why not do it anyway?
Sam Adams
Member
Fri May 12 12:28:19
"Remind me 14 tanks is what fraction of 1500 tanks"

14 western tanks is a larger value than 1500 soviet tanks.
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 13:44:09
rofl@sammymath

:D
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 14:01:04
jergul:

"Anectdotally, 1 of 5 drones made it to the kremlin. 3 were found around moscow days earlier and 1 of 2 in the attack made it close enough to slightly damage the roof."

So claim's moscow - and by found I suppose that means "crashed" rather than were intercepted - or we would have heard of the successful intercepts.

Or possibly just more strategic moving of debris to fit a narrative of "Russia Under Threat!".

But terrain hugging cruise missiles don't crash nearly so easily as modern doodlebugs.


jergul
large member
Fri May 12 15:15:48
Seb
Are you questioning Ukrainian air defence data? It shoots down 75% of cruise missiles. Why are you thinking, against better knowledge, that Russian air defences wouuld be worse performing?

75% of cruise missiles used by either side will be shot down. Give or take.

Tick-tock warriors will make their calls on the relevance.

Electronic countermeasures are also a thing. Losing guidance can happen.

Russians under threat is the narrative. Not "Russia under threat". Russian PR has been pretty consistent on that point.

jergul
large member
Fri May 12 15:17:12
I do follow Russian propaganda quite closely. As opposed to Western "set up to fail" suggestions on what Russian propaganda is.
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 15:58:16
Jergul:

I'm thinking if Ukraine can shoot down 75% of actual cruise missiles, the idea that Russias air defense network can let 40% of shitty fixed wing drones get right over the roof of the seat of govt in their capital before being shot down is frankly implausible.

And anyone waiving their hands and saying "oh, but it exploited terrain" and thinks a tiered ring of air defences letting one in five downscale fucking cesnas though is pretty reasonable or comparable with 25% of actual modern cruise missiles surviving Ukraine's air defense, while also simultaneously laughing at far more capable stealthy, terrain hugging cruise missiles designed to explore exactly that vulnerability has a bit of a conceptual disconnect going on.

It doesn't really matter how close they were launched (it will have been tens of km away from the Kremlin). Something that slow and visible ought to be dead meat long before it got to the Kremlin. Pantsirs are built for precisely this mission.

To make it really abundant what my point is here: it's totally implausible that a craft like a UJ22 got over the Kremlin before being shot down, given the final tier defences let alone other teirs without it being stage managed.

But the fact you are insisting it *is* while simultaneously arguing subsonic cruise missiles are obsolete is a freshly impressive level of cognitive dissonance.
Seb
Member
Fri May 12 15:58:29
Jergul:

I'm thinking if Ukraine can shoot down 75% of actual cruise missiles, the idea that Russias air defense network can let 40% of shitty fixed wing drones get right over the roof of the seat of govt in their capital before being shot down is frankly implausible.

And anyone waiving their hands and saying "oh, but it exploited terrain" and thinks a tiered ring of air defences letting one in five downscale fucking cesnas though is pretty reasonable or comparable with 25% of actual modern cruise missiles surviving Ukraine's air defense, while also simultaneously laughing at far more capable stealthy, terrain hugging cruise missiles designed to explore exactly that vulnerability has a bit of a conceptual disconnect going on.

It doesn't really matter how close they were launched (it will have been tens of km away from the Kremlin). Something that slow and visible ought to be dead meat long before it got to the Kremlin. Pantsirs are built for precisely this mission.

To make it really abundant what my point is here: it's totally implausible that a craft like a UJ22 got over the Kremlin before being shot down, given the final tier defences let alone other teirs without it being stage managed.

But the fact you are insisting it *is* while simultaneously arguing subsonic cruise missiles are obsolete is a freshly impressive level of cognitive dissonance.
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 16:10:58
Seb
You need a dataset of at least 8 to generate a semblance of meaningful statistics. For actual data though, 1 of 5 drones in the moscow area failed. Giving a failure rate of 80%.

Technically, Ukraine is not shooting down 75% of Russian attacks. We are seeing a 75% failure rate. Russian drones and missiles can also be spoofed.

The onus on you is to prove why demonstratibly better hardware is somehow less effective against the same type of targets.

Otherwise, we will just run with about 75% of drones and cruise missiles are what should be lost.

You are a funny guy seb.
jergul
large member
Fri May 12 16:14:45
You are laughably trying to make the argument that the UK cruise missile that the UK admits is inferior to the Kalibr is better than the kalibr?

Yah, you are one funny lad.
murder
Member
Fri May 12 17:44:53

"I do follow Russian propaganda quite closely."

No kidding.

murder
Member
Fri May 12 17:46:58

"You are laughably trying to make the argument that the UK cruise missile that the UK admits is inferior to the Kalibr is better than the kalibr?"

You seem surprised that a backward country produces inferior technology and weapon systems.

murder
Member
Fri May 12 20:31:06

This was likely the reason for Russia setting off those fireworks over the Kremlin. It was likely done to scare off western nations from supplying Ukraine with longer range weapons.

jergul
large member
Sat May 13 00:55:18
Murder
The UK is not that backwards.
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 01:45:43
Jergul:

"The onus on you is to prove why demonstratibly better hardware is somehow less effective against the same type of targets."

Your comprehension sucks. That would only make sense if I was claiming Russian air defense sucks. You are the one claiming Russian air defense sucks. I'm pointing out how ridiculously inconsistent and implausible that is.
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 01:48:37
"I'm thinking if Ukraine can shoot down 75% of actual cruise missiles, the idea that Russias air defense network can let 40% of shitty fixed wing drones get right over the roof of the seat of govt in their capital before being shot down is frankly implausible."

wHy aRe yOu sAyiNg RuSsIaN MiSSiLeS aRe BaD?!
jergul
large member
Sat May 13 02:58:34
Seb
Let 20% through. 8 drones. 1 made it through. If you want to cherry pick, then why not say 100% of the drones that made it through, made it through.

Why are you saying that missile systems that are demonstratably better than Ukrainian missile systems are worse than Ukrainian missile systems?

Particularly against the backdrop of worse penetration data for Ukrainians?

You are a funny lad.
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 04:39:19
Jergul:

Because a fixed wing drone isn't a cruise missile.

If you are comparing efficacy of air defences then crashes by unguided aircraft not really designed to operate autonomously at low level over long distance is an obvious confounding factors.

But I repeat the point: I would expect 3 overlapping pantsir systems to have 100% efficacy against a UJ22 and intercept well before it's over target.

The idea that they snuck through and were launched within the engagement range of the pantsirs is not credible.

But if you do think it's entirely plausible that 50% of UJ22s can get over its target before being engaged Vs three overlapping pantsir batteries, then obviously you'd expect a Kalibr or Strom shadow to do even better, and you have little basis for laughing at subsonic missiles.
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 04:42:13
"Why are you saying that missile systems that are demonstratably better than Ukrainian missile systems are worse than Ukrainian missile systems?"

Again, I'm not. I'm saying the precise opposite. You are the one asking us to believe that there overlapping pantsir batteries were somehow only able to detect and engage a rather low end prop driven fixed wing drone when it was actually over its target in the centre of the area they were defending.

They are obviously a lot, lot better than that.

Your reading comprehension really does suck jergul.
jergul
large member
Sat May 13 04:53:13
I am the one saying that there are reasons a 100% failure rate is unachievable. 75%+ is fine and fair. Russia has documented 7 of 8 drones failed.

If you are agreeing with me, then fair enough.
murder
Member
Sat May 13 06:43:32

"The UK is not that backwards."

But Russia is. And despite all evidence, you're still surprised that Russia's magic weapons don't work as hyped.

<spoiler>

China's don't either.

</spoiler>
murder
Member
Sat May 13 06:45:33

Also Iran and North Korea.

jergul
large member
Sat May 13 06:53:52
All aircraft on the planet would have been shot down 3 times over if Air defences were as good as their hype.

The 75% failure rate for incoming targets is from Ukraine mainly using old variants of the missile systems Russia is currently employing.

You can add all countries on the planet to your spoiler list if you like.
murder
Member
Sat May 13 07:15:47

"All aircraft on the planet would have been shot down 3 times over if Air defences were as good as their hype."

But enough about Russia.


"You can add all countries on the planet to your spoiler list if you like."

Nah, I'm pretty ours work pretty much as advertised.


You get caught up in the claimed interception rates if you like. I just ignore them. Of course missiles get through. You seem to be under the impression that countries spend millions of dollars per missile just to provide their enemies with clay pigeons to shoot down. Obviously that isn't the case. If cruise missiles were as easy to intercept as you seem to believe, tactics would change.
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 08:00:39
You have three pantsir systems targeting two pretty low capability drones.

Both travelled over the entire engagement range of the pantsir systems (more than the engagement radius) and were destroyed directly over the supposed target. Had they been travelling faster and been diving with a payload, the target would have been destroyed.

That's not an 80% success rate for the pantsir system.

Thats 0%.

Which is starkly in contrast to performance in the field.

You do the math on the discrepancy.

Seb
Member
Sat May 13 08:01:36
The fact that a bunch of drones supposedly didn't get to the point that the pantsir systems could have engaged them is not evidence of the pantsirs performance.
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 09:45:16
Whelp, first strikes carried out.

Supply depot in Luhansk.

Forwyn
Member
Sat May 13 10:51:28
Thank goodness their ability to blow shit up in Donetsk and Luhansk is re-engaged, otherwise we might not make it to ten years of them blowing shit up in Donetsk and Luhansk.
jergul
large member
Sat May 13 11:39:27
Russia claims it shot down the two planes that launched the missiles. Whelp. Whelp is a nice word.

7 of 8 drones lost is an 80% fail rate.

We are talking about the effectiveness of combined measures to defeat attacks. That is the whole point of layered air defences that include electronic countermeasures.

Forwyn
Ukraine has never lost the ability to blow up shit in Donetsk and Luhansk.
jergul
large member
Sat May 13 11:40:23
Murder
You think your work as advertised? Rofl. Wanna buy a bridge? I have one to sell. Cheap.
LazyCommunist
Member
Sat May 13 12:37:42
So we lost two Mi-8, a Su-34 and a Su-35 all in the same region many miles away from the border. Some say it was friendly fire, some say someone sabotaged our AA.
We will find out why this happened, we will avenge! We have thousands of planes and helicopters of all kinds, this changes nothing!
Seb
Member
Sat May 13 15:27:21
Jergul:

An 80% fail rate for the drones isn't the same as an 80% success rate for the pantsir system. And that's what we are talking about.

Namely the implausibility of three pantsir batteries failing to intercept slow shitty fixed wing prop driven drones; but if you are crazy enough to believe that's the level of performance, then having no business laughing at subsonic cruise missiles that can't be relied on to crash en-route because they have very limited autonomous flight and terrain following capabilities.
LazyCommunist
Member
Sat May 13 16:46:57
It doesn't matter. In WW2 we lost more people than the Nazis,too, but in the end we won the war. This time it will be the same.

http://www...licopters-downed/32410378.html

Later, Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that a Russian SU-35 jet and a second Mi-8 helicopter also crashed on May 13, but that report could not immediately be confirmed.

Kommersant said an SU-34, SU-35, and two Mi-8 helicopters were part of an air group and that they had been "shot down almost simultaneously" in the Bryansk region.

"According to preliminary data, they were all part of the same air group -- the fighters were supposed to deliver a missile and bomb attack on targets in the Chernihiv region of Ukraine, and the helicopters were to secure them, in order to pick up the SU crews if they were shot down by enemy fire," the report said.

"All four aircraft failed to return to the airfield. Their pilots are dead," it added.
Paramount
Member
Sun May 14 01:42:48
Every other week or so you hear in the news how the US is sending additional aid packages (consisting of billions of dollars) to Ukraine. This is probably why. US tax dollars going up in smoke:

http://youtu.be/_kqpbw6YTLo
jergul
large member
Sun May 14 03:55:34
Seb
80% fail rate is the correct metric for layered defences. Same metric for Ukraine.

This is what we are talking about. How individual things play out is generally uninteresting because it does not have statistical validity.

LazyCommunist
Member
Sun May 14 06:04:36
Girkin thinks that the enemy sent infiltration groups into our territory who shot down our aircrafts with stingers. This is hard to believe. How would they down 4 aircraft at once with stingers?
Now a pilot may react a little bit slow because he felt safe being still above our own territory, but all 4?

I want an explanation! Anybody knows if the missiles remains have already been located?
Seb
Member
Sun May 14 07:09:55
A system with 80% efficacy against something only marginally more capable than a ww2 doodlebug is nothing to brag about. Especially as the claim is most of these drones crashed due to being used outside their operational parameters.

But I ask again, do you *really* think that three pantsir batteries engaging two pretty slow, prop driven fixed wing drones should reasonably have such low performance.
Sam Adams
Member
Sun May 14 07:15:32
"How would they down 4 aircraft at once with stingers?"

They didnt. Not to mention it is pretty hard to shoot down a jet... even a shitty russian one... with a stinger.

The culprit was either: russian air defense or a ukrainian plane.
jergul
large member
Sun May 14 09:08:55
Seb
A combination of systems and countermeasures that in total cause 80% failure rates.

Of 8 drones/subsonic missiles, how many would I expect might reach a target? 0-2 95% of the time.

On the pantsir CT you want to design. The obvious one is monitoring their downtime, then taking advantage of a window of opportunity.

jergul
large member
Sun May 14 09:10:18
Sammy
You seem very trusting of a Russian newspaper. There is however footage of a helicopter being shot down and a plane spiraling down like a leaf without a smoke plume or fire.
Paramount
Member
Sun May 14 09:38:17
Russia has shot down 2 Ukrainian jets that were involved in an attack that killed 6 civilians in the Luhansk region.

http://youtu.be/RylYhsC4ReM
Seb
Member
Sun May 14 12:04:45
Jergul:

All three are going down at the same time?

Really?

LazyCommunist
Member
Sun May 14 12:10:59
Paramount, thank you for lifting the spirits, but unfortunately I don't see the plane destruction or the debris in the video.



Now we know why the Ukraine could avoid our AA with the british storm shadows
http://eur...ds-most-advanced-air-launched/

Ukraine Fires World’s ‘Most Advanced’ Air Launched Decoys, ADM-160B MALD, To Bait & Exhaust Russian Air Defenses

With a missile strike ongoing in Eastern Ukraine, a wreckage of a US-built ADM-160 Miniature Air Launched Decoy (MALD) was discovered in Ukraine, signaling the use of this “missile-like” decoy system which was never publicly announced by the United States in its military aid packages.
jergul
large member
Sun May 14 13:01:37
Seb
I am sure all of the launchers are off-line quite regularly. They need 5 minutes warning to activate assuming the crew is ready.

Funny that you think they are active all the time frankly. Uptime would typically be when people and leaders are actually at work, during state visits etc.
obaminated
Member
Sun May 14 18:13:18
Another day another couple Russian commanders killed.
Seb
Member
Mon May 15 06:48:34
Yes, obviously all three systems would go down at the same time. The Ukrainians obviously schedule their attacks and blowing up a few Kremlin domes would be no big deal if everyone was at home at the time.


In other news, I see that the integrated command is going down perfectly as you asserted and my prediction a few months back that the patchwork of PMCs, separatist forces and regular Russian military might not cohere or take big risks for each other has been decisively disproved.
jergul
large member
Mon May 15 07:09:44
Seb
The rule would more be turned on for special occassions than going down.

What red herring are you on about on your 2nd point? I have been arguing all the time that a SMO mucks with the Russian CoC in ways too many to count.

It cannot bring its forces to bear organizationally without a full mobilization. Right now, 1/3rd of every brigade is out camping with conscripts into their 6-12 months of military service. To name one of many, many troubles.
jergul
large member
Mon May 15 07:10:28
C(4) rather, not Chain of Command :D
Seb
Member
Mon May 15 07:34:28
Jergul:

I distinctly remember you arguing there was no issue with the different forces not being willing to take risks to help each other out.

Interested people can probably Google it.
jergul
large member
Mon May 15 07:56:02
Seb
Double negatives have me thinking your subconcious knows that is untrue. What does "help out" even mean?
Paramount
Member
Mon May 15 15:08:15
This link that I posted here yesterday http://youtu.be/_kqpbw6YTLo

The massive explosion, the pillar of fire and the mushroom cloud…
It was supposedly the stockpile of the british depleted uranium shells that was destroyed. Location: western Ukraine. So now Ukrainians will have to breathe in toxic dust and clouds. Although, didn’t Seb or Sam say that depleted uranium is not that bad for people? So maybe everything is fine. The notion that depleted uranium is bad may just be Russian propaganda.

http://youtu.be/_8D0M7NjfLI
Sam Adams
Member
Mon May 15 17:20:42
"It was supposedly the stockpile of the british depleted uranium shells that was destroyed."

Yes, russian telegram wants you to think that.
jergul
large member
Mon May 15 17:31:06
Sammy
Does it really matter what was destroyed? There was a big boom, so Ukraine lost some ammunition. Correlation and causation is herd. But there was an uptick in gamma radiation after the explosion. Still in the microsivetsk range (reports that uptick was before explosion struggle with concepts like timezones).

Modern war is a toxic war in any event. I dont think they are doing asbestos sanitation correctly when bulldozing rubble for example.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon May 15 18:16:41
"But there was an uptick in gamma radiation after the explosion."

No, there wasnt.
jergul
large member
Mon May 15 18:55:02
Was too. Check out the Khmelnytskyj measuring station.
murder
Member
Mon May 15 22:26:32

This seems like a good place for this ...

A Brief Disagreement

A visual journey into mankind's favorite pastime throughout the ages.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9x7FGbW3IVc

Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 16 01:18:43
Sounds like a major russian missile attack on kiev was just repulsed completely.

Patriots looking damn impressive. lol@hypersonic missiles.
Seb
Member
Tue May 16 03:23:40
Doubt you'd get much of a gamma uptick without seeing beta and alpha from dispersed dust. Radiation monitoring is incredibly sensitive.

DU isn't fissile so "mushroom" clouds is nonsense.
jergul
large member
Tue May 16 03:48:19
Sammy
What hypersonic missiles? Ukraine is down at least 30 hypesonic air defense missiles.

Patriots should look damned impressive. They are damned expensive missiles.

Seb
I just checked gamma radiation monitor data. What redherring is this mushroom you are talking about?
jergul
large member
Tue May 16 04:05:09
Sammy
That was 150 million at current replacement costs in like 3 minutes. Either Ukraine lacks fire discipline entirely, or it was force preservation. Russia forced the launches by targetting Patriot batteries.
Seb
Member
Tue May 16 04:06:18
Paramounts post.

Re Gamma, it hit 150ish nSv from 110, but regularly fluctuates into the high 30's.

Probably not - I would guess - DU dust,as DU dust would lead to persistently higher levels.

Also there are other signatures you'd expect.
jergul
large member
Tue May 16 04:12:46
I did not check for other signatures. Dust does settle. Not sure what the deal is. Part of sending DU to Ukraine is DU munitions being destroyed in depots sometimes.

According to Ukraine, 9 of the missiles were Patriot worthy. The other 9 could be dealt with by anything. It did not claim it shot down all missiles.

I am going to say 2:1 ratio of air defence expended to attacking missiles targetted has been confirmed.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 16 05:54:06
” Paramounts post. ”


Yes, if you look at 0:34, that looks like a mushroom to me.

http://youtu.be/_kqpbw6YTLo
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 16 06:46:38
Paramount,
The "mushroom" shape commonly associated with nuclear bombs can emerge from any sufficiently large explosion and is due to heat and pressure. Has nothing to do with fissile material.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue May 16 06:47:32
Oh look there is a wiki page :)

http://en..../media/File:Mushroom_cloud.svg
Seb
Member
Tue May 16 07:17:01
jergul:

"Dust does settle"

Yeah, but it keeps emitting gammas.

It would be odd that DU dust passed by the radiation monitor in some kind of dense cloud and then didn't settle.

I suppose you might get a blip from the initial column that was in better LOS to the sensor and, when it settled, is no longer so.

It seems a little unlikely. The whole point of these sensors is detection of minute traces of radioisotopes suspended in the air by their emissions local to the sensor, rather than detecting the radiation via LoS from a distant source.
Seb
Member
Tue May 16 07:19:28
The issue is the stories circulating on "TikTok" (including the gamma story) and excited comments about radiological signatures are not correct.

The ammo dump may or may not have contained DU rounds. As before, the issue will be chemical toxicity - but as you agree, many weapons give off long lasting and nasty (and also persistent) toxins.
jergul
large member
Tue May 16 07:47:18
Not only weapons. I was not joking about rubble cleanup not taking asbetos precautions. All kinds of things we surround ourselves with become toxic if burned or aerosolized.
jergul
large member
Tue May 16 07:51:15
Well Russia claims it hit a Patriot platform. Either way, I think it is confirmed that the flurry of launches were done in the name of Patriot self-preservation. 30 odd missiles is otherwise way too many to burn off in a couple minutes.
murder
Member
Tue May 16 08:41:52

"Patriots should look damned impressive. They are damned expensive missiles."

Missile intercept tests are expensive. In this case Russia is pitching in with their own target missiles. Can't beat the realistic battle conditions either.



Sam Adams
Member
Tue May 16 10:24:39
"What hypersonic missiles?"

Kinzhals got pwnt.
Seb
Member
Tue May 16 10:42:07
jergul:

It's quite normal to try and degrade air defence though.

If the patriot batteries hadn't been there, then the would have been targeting other things.

So I'm not really sure what your point is - other than "patriots are effective defence against Khizhal 'Hypersonic' (aka air launched ballistic) missiles. And presumably Iskanders too, given that is what a Khinzahl actually is.

I wonder what Russian expectations were here though?

It seems to demonstrate that these are not effective tactical nuclear weapon delivery systems against NATO - so that's a dent to their use as a deterrent.
jergul
large member
Tue May 16 11:53:50
Seb
The patriots are not nearly effective enough if effective at all. The batteries launched 5 missiles per incoming kinzal. There were not very many air impact detonations (I counted 2).

Sammy
Wanna buy a bridge? You have to stop being so guilable.
Paramount
Member
Tue May 16 12:46:53
Is there a video of where a Kinzhal is being shot down?

If not, it probably didn’t happen.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share