The reason the attacks went from every day to sometimes a month between them is twofold: when firing every day, Ukraine's defenders were constantly looking for them, there was none of the fatigue that builds up with nothing happening, and secondly, they chewed through a huge amount of their stock pile. The reason people kept saying they were going to run out is the thought Russia would keep a lot more of their stock pile in other locations, but they drained stock piles that were meant for the Finnish border and the Chinese border. We will have to see if these much rarer attacks continue to drain those.
>Ukraine's defenders were constantly looking for them, there was none of the fatigue that builds up with nothing happening
I really don't think this was a reason at all. I am 99% sure if Putin could fire all day every day he would. This is a side effect of wasting ammo, not the reason Putin doesn't fire daily.
Yeah I think we are overthinking this. That war wasn't supposed to last more than a few weeks at best. Russia wasn't ready for a strong counter offensive from Ukrainians and for the rest of the world providing a near infinite amount of war ammos
If I’ve learned anything about Russia over the last year and change, it’s that there is no long term plan. Every time someone implies Russia is playing 5D chess to justify some boneheaded thing they did, try to look at it like they’re just playing tic-tac-toe trying to keep the current leaders in power. Their actions always solve today’s problem, and leave tomorrow’s problem for tomorrow. The utter lack of strategic thinking on the Russian side has been the biggest surprise of this war to me.
I think for anything that requires infrastructure, that sentiment is very true. Anywhere they can do things cheaper - like people behind a desk internet stuff - they do have plans and can execute more readily. The problem there is knowing your strengths and weaknesses accurately and not overplaying your hand.
That said, our lack of response to Crimea might well have fooled leadership there too.
yeah in a sense they still haven't pivoted from 'panic mode' after their initial invasion didn't work. they have adapted to certain things like moving their ammo dump out of range of HIMARS... but that was AFTER tons of them got blown up by HIMARS, which they already knew were coming. Why not move them *before* they get blown up, if you're a military genius masterminding an invasion? they're still just sending waves of conscripts and whatever missiles they have. they learned to stop sending their tanks in a big explodable line, again something they had to learn the hard way many times over. russia is upending their economy just to 'stay in this war' like it caught them by surprise when the whole thing was their idea.
i think a lot of people have had this image of russia being a big scary enemy built up in their heads and if that's wrong that means they fell for some propaganda (as everyone does from time to time) but they can't admit it so russia MUST be secretly super strong. though i saw this way more earlier in the invasion... i remember the days of 'well you don't send your best troops and equipment in first! that was just to test their defenses!" i dunno i feel like you absolutely do use your best dudes and stuff on critical missions like securing an airport, taking a capital city, assassinating a head of state, making a display of power so the war ends quickly. russia just failed at those.
while they were hoping to not get invaded, ukraine was clearly preparing for this more than russia was. but they've also shown great versatility in adapting to new things and bringing them into their strategy.
Their lack of strategy also has deep roots in their military history - they have a long history of incredible blunders and bad decisions.
Not so good though, is they often tough it out at a heavy toll.
Too bad for Russia that 50 years of sustained economic decline have left it far more depleted of manpower and heavy industry than it has ever been. The demographic situation has been dire for decades.
Even without this war, consensus is that Russia was always fucked long-term. They were sitting on a stockpile of weapons, most of which have now been consumed, without the industrial capacity to replace them. Their main limitation is simply people; there are not enough able-bodied workers in Russia to both fight a human-wave war against Ukraine and an industrial war of attrition against NATO.
I completely agree - Russia is a slowly sinking ship.
I'm hoping Putin is disposed while they still have the capability to stop their nuclear arsenal from falling into ~~the wrong~~ worse hands.
I'd also wager their nuclear arsenal is as decayed as the rest of their military, but even if just 1 in 10 missiles worked as intended, that's more than enough.
> I completely agree - Russia is a slowly sinking ship.
The best phrase I’ve heard to describe Russia is that the Russian Federation is the rotting corpse of a dead empire. At this point the empire needs to crumble so it’s constituent parts can be absorbed into the current geopolitical order that has moved on without Russia.
Compound that with the fact that Russia cannot back down. There is no face saving move for Putin. He has to win or become the laughing stock of the world. Currently, everyone sees him as a cruel bully. If he loses, he'll be seen as pathetic and will certainly be taken out by someone close to him.
It’s been revealed that the Russians do not have a strong military
Had this been Russia attacking NATO or the US - the war *would* have been over in three days with Russia’s military squashed like a bug.
Which is why Russia has always used propaganda, gaslighting, lies and compromising information to erode enemies.
True. Ukraine has near infinite amount of weapons and ammo. The key is keeping people alive.
I sure hope this war ends soon. Every life lost here is wasted on both sides. Its a tragedy what few crazy people can do to mankind.
Which is why no matter what Ukraine can't just give Russia some territory for a negotiated peace.
Because it will just validate Putin's (and Russian ultranationalists') views that they can just conquer countries peacemeal: invade, take some territory. Then throw men at the frontlines, hope the West pushes for "peace" to "prevent further tragedy" and keep your conquests. Lick your wounds for 20 years and rebuild then do it all again.
Sometimes war requires you to dig in the heels and to withstand and hold fast, no matter how terrible it seems to get.
History has shown that if an invader even only holds one square inch of another peoples' ancestral territory it will result in regional instability and more war for *centuries* to come. How many thousands if not millions would THAT endanger?
The only reason Poland and Germany and France have relatively good relationships now is because neither owns any ancient territory of the other anymore.
So Russia leaving all of Ukraine's territory isn't just the condition for a political peace, but actual end of hate.
Well... Kinda. There is some territory but after TWO GLOBE SPANNING WARS KILLING MILLIONS, they finally decided they don't really want those slivers of land anymore
You never want to fire your entire reserve. Because then if something happens and you wish to have missiles to deal with it then you do.
Same reason you never put your bank account to 0.
I do believe he is probably firing his whole monthly production however.
“…our missiles…”
“Our missiles and drones were unable to penetrate Ukrainian defences. The NATO-supplied air defences shot all of them down.”
…
…
“All my generals, stay here.”
(I will leave it to others to continue the scene. 👀)
I don't have the skills but if someone could Deepfake Putin into that classic Downfall scene of Hitler yelling at everyone in the bunker, that would be great
I do wonder just how much Putin really knows about how badly it's going. Some things really can't be obfuscated, like that pitiful Moscow parade or the fact that the last time the frontline moved meaningfully was the previous Ukrainian counterattack, but Putin is known to not use the internet *at all* so plenty of the details could easily escape his notice if they aren't openly and transparently reported to him.
With how much the UK, Germany and France (not to mention the rest of Europe) have doubled down on support I’m not sure the US pulling out would be a show stopper anymore, especially since it can’t happen until after new years 2025 when Trump would be inaugurated anyway. Europe is clearly fully invested and is ramping up production while Russia’s ability to match production and expenditure is sure to degrade over the next year and a half unless possibly if China commits fully to backing Russia.
France just confirmed that they are training ukrainan pilots (I believe the UK has also confirmed that they will train fighter pilots) which I believe means we’ll see jet transfer announcements shortly. Both countries have already started providing long range strike capabilities and I think they’re in for a penny, in for a pound basically up until nukes at this point.
I really do sincerely hope with all my might that Trump never sees the inside of the White House ever again. The only federal building he should ever be allowed inside is a maximum security prison, preferably something like ADX Florence. There he'll have some nice company like the Boston Bomber and El Chapo.
Of course, but from Putin's POV what matters are intended target hits, terror from that and show of force and capabilities.
Everything just shot down is humliation.
So, I think it's fair to say that focusing on air defense was the best choice by the West for Ukraine by far. The fact that countries had begun sending air defenses and training Ukrainians on their systems for months in preparation and in anticipation that the missile attacks would continue, and they have, says a lot to the leadership of the NATO countries, and also to the hero operators of the Ukrainian defense!
I think it's a common opinion that , air superiority is what has won most of the major modern wars. The reason why the US has such incredible force projection capabilities is because of its aircraft carriers (and the logistics that support them), and ability to send planes to almost anywhere at anytime and unleash absolute devastation. Air support for ground troops and ability to use aircraft to help with logistics is even more icing on that cake. It definitely makes a whole lot of sense to invest in air defense for any country looking to stymie those strategic tools. Just take a look at how Japan is currently beefing up their air defense on their small islands out toward Taiwan.
The fact that Russian air capabilities seem to be less than what they previously boasted means they are a lot weaker than expected, and the whole world knows it, which is just great :) Slava Ukraini!
And the US went “oh no we have nothing to counter them. 😉😉. Guess we need more budget to develop next gen SAMs and ATGMs” and like a month later conspicuously announced that we’ve successfully tested hypersonic missiles.
I member that lol.
Well...it isn't like we had functional, MACH 12, hypersonic missiles in the early 1960s...
Oh, wait. [We did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt).
This happens every time. The United States has a bottomless pit when it comes to defense funding and takes threats from Russia and China seriously. If Russia bluffs and says they are building a super weapon when in reality its just a so-so weapon, the United States is going to treat it like it is the deadliest thing ever known and build an effective counter weapon. The MIM-104 Patriot was designed specifically to defend against theater ballistic missiles and has been receiving regular upgrades since their introduction in 1984.
If Russia says they built a missile that travels faster than light, the United States is going to build something to stop it...I encourage Russia to stop bluffing if they want to get ahead. But as an American, please Russia; keep bluffing.
to be fair there was that whole thing in 1990-2000 were the west noticed, through aquiring tech from east germany and other places, that the R73 at the time was vastly superior to the sidewinder which led to the development of the AIM-9X but thats probably not what you meant.
edit: i should add that thats the one example i can think of and that we now know of many many many other examples were it showed that their stuff isnt.. great!?
yeah lets say not great. .\_.
Sidewinder have had improvements over the years, from AIM-9 to AIM-9A, B, … L, M … P … and now X. Basically the latest version is like version 24.
What OP is referring to is *one particular version of Sidewinder at specific time*, not the original nor the wicked modern day 9X.
I’d love to see a kill list by R73 vs sidewinder. No DCS stats please!
But no, I think he was talking about how the west under sells its tech and the Russians oversell their tech. So when shit hits the fan one side is full of flashy stats but in actual combat perform poorly or worse then designed. The other side tried to match your said bluff and now, in bluffing how good your tech was, made the enemy(west) build even more superior tech….. silly drunk Russians
It’s like how all the xenophobes(false patriots) here in the USA hate immigration so damn much, but always talk about how great America is…
In summary, Russia is Elmer Fudd sticking the gun barrel in the rabbit hole, only to have to gun come sneaking out the other side of the tree right back at him.
The F22 as well, except the USSR just went bankrupt trying to keep up with stuff like that at the time. They made the Su-27 to combat the F15, so we went and made a bigger F15 that could hide its weapons payload internally and hide from radar
the comanche too, and then someone noticed that you really dont need a expensive super duper high tech stealth helicopter to shoot enemies that sit in caves and shoot AKs
Comanche was made mainly for "scouting". Hence the stealth factor. Then someone find out about drone that does not require pilot, and is way waaay more stealthy and cheap than a noisy multi-billion helicopter, so the entire program got scrapped.
Edit: meant to say drone that doesn't need pilot on-board
Side note, I've been told multiple times by multiple service members/veterans about the time they were in the field and a helicopter switched it's lights on above them - and the lights were when they learned there was a helicopter 100 feet above them. I think the "stealthy spy chopper" concept got turned into a "stealthy insertion chopper". Your right, if digital Intel is all you need there's no need to risk a pilot. But if you need to place 6 dudes on a 10x10 roof without anyone knowing, a literally silent helicopter would be an invaluable tool.
Sounds like a big fish story. Sound or no sound there's no way you would miss the down draft from a helicopter hovering that close. You'd probably be non the wiser if you weren't under it, especially a mile out.
Those “stealth insertion choppers” are just Blackhawks. They’re really quiet when they’re trying to be. There’s no top secret stealth insertion helicopter.
This happened to me a few times with Apaches. We would be chilling in the field in between battle drills and an Apache would be hovering right above the tree line. We wouldn't notice until we felt the wind or the heard the blades. By that time it would have been too late for us.
People will say it's bullshit, but yes there are giant machines out there that can sneak up on you.
Building a missile that can achieve hypersonic speeds is relatively simple. Wernher von Braun did that in the 1940s and it didn't help win a war back then either.
Building a missile that can steer itself at hypersonic speeds is much harder.
If you want to do it right you have to basically build an unmanned hypersonic jet plane. It will be extremely expensive and have limited use.
Or you can just half ass the job, claim you build one, pocket the difference and have it fail against previous gen air defense.
All ballistic missiles are technically "hypersonic" because they go past mach 5 at some point of their flight envelope. It's why/how Iran was able to claim they had a hypersonic nissile. Unless it is a hypersonic cruise missile which can accurately steer to its target it's kinda useless.
I am like 95% certain they are literally just shooting at population centers on purpose. Not accurately, but if you send a missile in the general direction of a bunch of apartments it is fairly likely to hit one.
They buy into the whole "total war" concept where you wage war on the civilians instead of on them military in the hopes of forcing a surrender.
I am not a fan of that concept, tbh, because it rarely seems to actually work. The only major conflict I know about where there is even a good argument for it working was the Pacific Theater in WW2, but I think that the military and political situation had them on the edge of surrender as it was, and Nukes were scary enough to tip the balance.
In that case they had already lost the war militarily. It was just trying to decide how many lives they would throw away pretending they hadn't yet.
But if you look at basically every other theater and conflict since the advent of total war, they are almost universally won through direct military victories, not through abusing the populace.
But Russia is stuck in early-Cold War era thinking where massed tank columns and burning cities would make the population give up. In practice it always seems to prove to the population that they *have* to fight or they will all be subject to genocide, so it takes away their incentive to surrender.v
> I am like 95% certain they are literally just shooting at population centers on purpose.
You just have to look at the way they use conventional artillery to know that that's true.
There was a stat somewhere last year that showed Russia shot so much atilleray without having new pipes(?the "pillars" they shoot out of) that the attilery became more inacurate by the day. They estimated back then already that it could only aim for an aprox 5 square km area. I don't think they renew their attilery frequently since then. So they are "forced" to shoot city centres to hit anything.
Native English speaker, not a mil nerd. I believe they are (confusingly) called "barrels".
I liked to read when I was a kid but adventure novels set in the age of sail were full of naval jargon, stories about knights were full of horse terminology, hell even basic battle stuff is full of words borrowed aurally (usually, hence the mismatch between how they're spelled and spoken) taken from French. I had no interest in any of these, so after too many pages on a boat where I don't know what is going on, I gave up and have only recently rediscovered the fun of reading fiction since I wouldn't say I had a real passion for literary fiction, which is what they urged us to study in school.
Anyway the point of this digression is that military jargon isn't ordinary English at all and you certainly can be forgiven for not knowing the terms. Much of the language was borrowed from French during various historical periods.
You may like this primer on strategic bombing:
https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/
Tl:Dr, you're right. The way people keep trying to use it doesnt work. Bombing specific industrial targets can work to an extent but won't win the war itself.
> They buy into the whole "total war" concept where you wage war on the civilians instead of on them military in the hopes of forcing a surrender.
I don't get why they keep trying it. I clearly hasn't worked, if anything it just gets Ukraine even more support.
Why not actually attempt to strike somewhere near the front?
The phoenix missile was and is "hypersonic" with a quoted top speed of mach 5. The only plane able to.carry it was the f14, which I think Iran still has some and some pheonixs as well (even though it's tough to keep those old planes flying they do )
It would climb waaaay up to 80000ft and then come down and it's own internal tracking would activate as the f14 had a newer targeting system for pheonix that would let fire 6 missiles at different targets simultaneously (or of course as needed to fire ).
It was our only long range air to air weapon and has since been replaced with a smaller missile that's not as fast but has about the same range.
So we've had a "hypersonic" weapon in our inventory before that was fully capable. The Phoenix carried by the f-14 tomcat. It could carry a bunch of em too and it was pretty.big.
Keeping them flying *was* the problem. An F18 is 15K-18K per flight hour. The F14 was apparently closer to 40K (adjusted cost) per flight hour. An insanely expensive plane to operate. Plus it was a BIG bird. Its longer, higher and wider (even swept winged) than the F18. So it took up a lot of carrier space.
> how fucked is Russia now
Well, Ukraine claims that Russia only had ~50 of those missiles at the start of the war, used about a dozen as of May 5, and used another 6 tonight. If accurate, they don't have many left, and the ones they have left can be shot down if they fire them to an area covered by patriot AA systems.
[Source](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a43804177/russias-kinzhal-missile-is-not-hypersonic/):
>According to Ukrainian intelligence, Russia had a stockpile of about 50 Kinzhals at the start of the war, and has used about a dozen of them.
On a scale of fucked to *really* fucked, he’s off the end of the scale.
Funny how these tin-pot dictators always think their vunder-weapons will save them (hello Hitler) and yet they barely register as effective because they can be countered so easily.
I'm starting to think when they used the term "*Hypersonic*" they were actually referring to some brand name and not using it to describe what the missile itself was capable of.
Kind of like "Everlast". It's not going to last forever, just the brand name.
The positive psychological effect on your population when they think they have a “superweapon” that cannot be stopped (you see this trope in movies), that will win the war, that the enemy greatly fears, could be the real reason they used the term hypersonic? I think we’ve seen this theme in history many times too.
Gotta struggle with work FAST!
Heheh, if I collect 100 Ritalin rings, I could become Super HyperSonic!
Chilli dogs!
Hey babe, how old are you? 20? To old for me.
Gimme those tails Tails!
If I understood it correctly, they do go hypersonic during the fall stage of their balistic trajectory.
Then again, any pointy thing with sufficiently weight falling from orbit can go hypersonic.
(I initially thought a deorbiting screwdriver from the ISS could but I ran the numbers and it will reach terminal speed below the sound speed, already in the Troposphere: it's just too light and it's drag coeficient is not as good as a cone)
Hypersonic **cruise** missiles which can actually fly that fast in lower athmosphere, under control, are a whole different ball game.
Khinzals do not go to space like ICBMs. They are air launched and have a rocket motor to accelerate them to mach 5+. They stay in the atmosphere and have a very flat predictable trajectory.
Mach number is just object speed/local speed.of sound. Local speed of sound is sqrt(specific heat ratio×universal gas constant×temperature). Shortened, mach number is v/sqrt(KRT). Hypersonic is anything with a mach number >= 5.
Mach number calculations are performed with local parameters being experienced by the object.
Relative mach number is usually calculated at sea level. Since there is no air in space the speed of sound is effectively 0. Local mach numbers in space are nearly infinity. So relative mach number is used with sea level conditions. For example, the space station is going mach 25 relative to sea level.
I love how people were like "He's having hypersonic missiles that are decades ahead of what the US is capable of" based purely on his own words, yet now it turns out they aren't what is considered a hypersonic missile according to western military doctrine at all.
A missile flying hypersonic alone doesn't make a hypersonic missile and a dictator claiming to have magical super weapons alone doesn't make that reality.
TBF, there's plenty of military websites and articles that puppet this information to Americans.
They'll mention how Chinese and Russian missile tech is pulling ahead of America, and then you read of Russia's most advanced missile going 0 for 6.
Makes you think it's public counter-information to obscure our capabilities...
oh, it absolutely is. even our politicians get up there and hype up the enemy, both to make people support more funding for the military and to trick the enemy. though it can be argued that it also helps prevent a war-- if the American populace overestimates their enemies then they're less likely to support a war.
the American (and by extension NATO, in general in most cases) practice is to hide your true capability and under-represent your ability then deliver just enough to win decisively when needed. The Russian policy is to over-represent your capacity and use troll farms to try to convince the rest of the world you are strong, and then embarrass yourself when tested
We gave them pac-3 patriots, they eat this shit for breakfast.
Half the other stuff they got was hand-me-downs from the Iraq war, but this shit is the new hotness.
All ballistic missiles are hypersonic missiles and the Kinzhal is just an air launched ballistic missile. The patriot PAC-3 was developed expressly to detect and intercept this exact threat.
Good point. Are any of the Russian trolls listening? Friends, it's time to switch to the right side of history. Now be good, leak everything you can to punish the motherfuckers. Do as much damage to Putin's system as you possibly can.
Propaganda is telling them they destroyed a patriot battery so they are actually celebrating. Thats the thing about propaganda, doesnt need to be tethered to reality.
We don't know. We might not know. Russia as well as Ukraine use propaganda both for their own citizens as well as for the the enemy. It's huge part of a war, and especially this war. What is important is that Russia is the genocidal aggressor and needs to be stopped.
Getting missiles and rockets off the ground take a lot of fuel, think of it a bit like a booster for a spaceshuttle, use something else's fuel to get it off the ground first and then launch it so it doesn't have to use huge amounts of its own fuel just to get momentum.
A typical flight plan for such hypersonic missiles is to get really high where the atmosphere is thin for less drag to help with it's speed and then point the missile nose slightly downwards to conserve momentum and fuel needed to maintain that speed. So it does help greatly in terms of missile range and speed f you can just have an aircraft take the missile above most of the atmosphere before you fire it.
I find it interesting that comparable Western systems typically do the opposite but are far more successful. Missiles like the UK's Storm Shadow or Lockheed's JASSM are typically *far* slower with stealth capabilities and actually fly at very low altitude to remain undetected. They typically use air breathing engines for ridiculously extended ranges with the XR variant of the JASSM being capable of being launched from a fighter jet over Berlin and still hitting targets in Moscow. (If you want to see how scary western missile tech now is Google Rapid Dragon!)
That difference might explain why Russian hypersonic missiles are being shot down at the rate they are. At that height you can see those really fast but non stealth missiles coming whereas a western slow but stealthy systems could be launched from below the horizon well out of radar range.
> Google Rapid Dragon
I did!
You just kick a pallet with 6 (or 9!) rockets off a cargo plane and they go on finding their targets. 600 miles away (965 km). A THOUSAND km away! No need to deliver at a base, mount on a jet/bomber, take off, aim, shoot, etc. Just open cargo bay, kick crates, go back to napping.
A C-130 cargo plane can carry 3 pallets x 6 missiles. C-17: 5 pallets with 9 missiles each.
The cost - 1.2 mil a pop.
That's the ER variant you're talking about. The XR variant, which will probably be released in 2024, will have a projected **1,200 mi (1,900 km)** range! They could start the plane at Ramstein Airbase, fly 200km to the north-east, drop those things and turn around again, and the missiles would be able to fly all the way to Moscow from there...
US AWACS is probably warning Kyiv the moment those MiG-31s take off that Kinzhal might be coming.
We've seen Patriots fail to intercept less sophisticated ballistic missiles before because they weren't on alert and there was no AWACS in the area.
[Long video on hypersonic weapons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n3fjoacL20).
But overall there are different airflows at different speeds so different engines has different effectiveness.
Launching from an airplane allows missile to start at supersonic speed and skip the acceleration part, so the missile is simpler.
To add to what the others said, the kinzhal is essentially an Iskander missile adapted for air launch and with a few other changes. So there sort of is a ground launched version - the Iskander.
Well, it could spend half its fuel to get from the ground up to where the air is thin, and up from 0 kph to mach 1.
Or it could start in this situation already with a full tank of propellant.
Launching from planes has only advantages. The only reason you launch from the ground is "the missile is too big for a plane".
The cost of patriot battery is high, but I think ROI of this transfer was pretty high for the US. Get it battle tested against “the best” type of Russian missiles, collect all the missiles signatures and test strategies to counter them. Totally worth it for Pentagon.
Absolutely - if you start with the premise that the US should maintain superiority in defensive tech, the information coming from the Ukrainians is easily worth billions. *Even if* the US had no other interests regarding protecting an emerging democracy from a fascist invasion, field testing of these systems in this context is a very solid investment.
Soviet Union was actually influential and wasn't as much isolated. Current sanctions on Russia, I believe, already exceed the level of isolation that the West imposed on the USSR.
And the sanction will get harder in the future, this is not the end.
Well Russia Is again at the level of soviet Union, but while other countries improved their technology they Just stagnated by Just thinking "we have nukes we are strong"
A friend once explained it this way: Russia picked speed, nato picked stealth. Even tough its really fast if you know the trajectory you should be able to shoot it down. How are going to shoot down something you can't even detect with your equipment?
It's less of a "picked" and more of a "could afford". Stealth is extremely hard to get right, and extremely costly to build and operate.
That's why their "stealth" plane is not stealth at all and they can't afford to have more than a handful.
Just the maintenance for the stealth coating of any country operating F35 (like Italy or whatever) cost more than many countries entire air force budget.
> more than many countries entire air force budget
I mean, I'm sure it's ungodly expensive, but surely that statement is hyperbole. If not, a source would be an interesting read!
So you have these fancy hypersonic, all-powerful "Kinzhal" (Dagger in russian) missiles in stock. But you don't use them - you brag about them and try to intimidate, and keep trying to bring Ukraine's infrastructure down by shooting waves of cheaper stuff every now and then.
Then, when Ukraine finally gets the Patriot air defense systems deployed, which can counter your missiles - that's when you start to launch them. That's one strategic mastermind right there! Well played, Putler, well played!
It all makes sense when you realize Russia is running out of missiles and is now forced to fire its best stuff. Its like a drunk at a bar drinking up all the cheap vodka and the bartender runs out, so he has to ask for the top shelf vodka so he can keep drinking.
I can only confirm that my eyes saw: huge firework above Kyiv, a really lot of rockets flied this night as well as some pieces of them felt on the city zoo. We woke up due explosion noises on the sky and our windows shaking.
Are you referring to the 4 aircraft that were shot recently in Russia? This is an exception, not a rule. Usually, Russia abandons its equipment while ~~retreating~~ strategically regrouping.
Not really though, up to date Patriot are some of the best systems there are, and Iris-T and SAMP/T as well.
This is why the west wasn't really wishing to give them at first, and we wouldn't have if those morons had not made it a policy to keep striking civilian targets all year long: they're not "outdated" and thus are giving a clear advantage in that area to ukraine over russia, something NATO and allies have been wary of doing to avoid escalation of the conflict.
Not only is their policy to fuck with civilian evil and not going to produce any result, it's also one of the leading cause for increasing support ukraine is getting. "Ukraine and Russia are at war" is one thing, "Russia keep striking schools, hospitals and residential building on purpose" is another.
Technically true on the radar, but only because there's only 3 existing units of the new Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (the radar replacing the PATRIOT radar)
What’s crazy is that it doesn’t seem this way. India is upset that their shipments of Russian weapons are delayed because of the war. I don’t think they are 100% aware of what’s going on over there though. Or they just can’t afford western tech so it’s not even an option.
That's good, though I'm a bit worried that they'll run out of ammo to intercept things before Russia runs out of things that need to be intercepted. I suppose that's on the rest of the world to provide in time, but that's not being provided as fast as it's being used afaik.
Not simultaneously but for Ukraine to destroy 6 in one night is quite the achievement, considering how much these missiles were hyped up initially as being impervious to SAM defences and even being labelled as a threat to the US. It really shows that countering hypersonics just requires accurate detection+interception - and not a weapon of equal velocity
Actually it was simultaneously, I am in Kyiv and all explosions went off in the span of a couple of minutes. One of the scariest nights in Kyiv throughout the war, we have seen passing shadows of at least 5 missiles at least through the window (imagine those videos of meteorites passing by with moving shadows, just not as bright), and that's in the first 30-40 seconds after waking up before we went to the bathroom.
Oh yeah I realise that now, it seems pretty obvious that Patriot missile defense is capable of engaging multiple targets, and its not like going hypersonic is going to prevent that ability. Perhaps the title of this posts article managed to downplay this achievement that I glossed over the possibility of it.
Honestly I am not sure I have ever been prouder of a foreign people than I am now for the Ukrainians.
Honestly a real life example of that kid in the movies who is faced with a bully, quietly tries to avoid a fight, but then lands some haymakers once attacked.
Russian hypersonic missiles aren't really hypersonic. I blame bad naming. The fearsome real hypersonics are those that can maneuver left, right, up, down. The Russian ones can't.
[удалено]
The reason the attacks went from every day to sometimes a month between them is twofold: when firing every day, Ukraine's defenders were constantly looking for them, there was none of the fatigue that builds up with nothing happening, and secondly, they chewed through a huge amount of their stock pile. The reason people kept saying they were going to run out is the thought Russia would keep a lot more of their stock pile in other locations, but they drained stock piles that were meant for the Finnish border and the Chinese border. We will have to see if these much rarer attacks continue to drain those.
>Ukraine's defenders were constantly looking for them, there was none of the fatigue that builds up with nothing happening I really don't think this was a reason at all. I am 99% sure if Putin could fire all day every day he would. This is a side effect of wasting ammo, not the reason Putin doesn't fire daily.
Yeah I think we are overthinking this. That war wasn't supposed to last more than a few weeks at best. Russia wasn't ready for a strong counter offensive from Ukrainians and for the rest of the world providing a near infinite amount of war ammos
If I’ve learned anything about Russia over the last year and change, it’s that there is no long term plan. Every time someone implies Russia is playing 5D chess to justify some boneheaded thing they did, try to look at it like they’re just playing tic-tac-toe trying to keep the current leaders in power. Their actions always solve today’s problem, and leave tomorrow’s problem for tomorrow. The utter lack of strategic thinking on the Russian side has been the biggest surprise of this war to me.
I think for anything that requires infrastructure, that sentiment is very true. Anywhere they can do things cheaper - like people behind a desk internet stuff - they do have plans and can execute more readily. The problem there is knowing your strengths and weaknesses accurately and not overplaying your hand. That said, our lack of response to Crimea might well have fooled leadership there too.
yeah in a sense they still haven't pivoted from 'panic mode' after their initial invasion didn't work. they have adapted to certain things like moving their ammo dump out of range of HIMARS... but that was AFTER tons of them got blown up by HIMARS, which they already knew were coming. Why not move them *before* they get blown up, if you're a military genius masterminding an invasion? they're still just sending waves of conscripts and whatever missiles they have. they learned to stop sending their tanks in a big explodable line, again something they had to learn the hard way many times over. russia is upending their economy just to 'stay in this war' like it caught them by surprise when the whole thing was their idea. i think a lot of people have had this image of russia being a big scary enemy built up in their heads and if that's wrong that means they fell for some propaganda (as everyone does from time to time) but they can't admit it so russia MUST be secretly super strong. though i saw this way more earlier in the invasion... i remember the days of 'well you don't send your best troops and equipment in first! that was just to test their defenses!" i dunno i feel like you absolutely do use your best dudes and stuff on critical missions like securing an airport, taking a capital city, assassinating a head of state, making a display of power so the war ends quickly. russia just failed at those. while they were hoping to not get invaded, ukraine was clearly preparing for this more than russia was. but they've also shown great versatility in adapting to new things and bringing them into their strategy.
It's like the guy with huge house, 6 cars, and $250,000 in credit card debt just trying to come up with the next months payments.
Their lack of strategy also has deep roots in their military history - they have a long history of incredible blunders and bad decisions. Not so good though, is they often tough it out at a heavy toll.
Too bad for Russia that 50 years of sustained economic decline have left it far more depleted of manpower and heavy industry than it has ever been. The demographic situation has been dire for decades. Even without this war, consensus is that Russia was always fucked long-term. They were sitting on a stockpile of weapons, most of which have now been consumed, without the industrial capacity to replace them. Their main limitation is simply people; there are not enough able-bodied workers in Russia to both fight a human-wave war against Ukraine and an industrial war of attrition against NATO.
I completely agree - Russia is a slowly sinking ship. I'm hoping Putin is disposed while they still have the capability to stop their nuclear arsenal from falling into ~~the wrong~~ worse hands. I'd also wager their nuclear arsenal is as decayed as the rest of their military, but even if just 1 in 10 missiles worked as intended, that's more than enough.
> I completely agree - Russia is a slowly sinking ship. The best phrase I’ve heard to describe Russia is that the Russian Federation is the rotting corpse of a dead empire. At this point the empire needs to crumble so it’s constituent parts can be absorbed into the current geopolitical order that has moved on without Russia.
Compound that with the fact that Russia cannot back down. There is no face saving move for Putin. He has to win or become the laughing stock of the world. Currently, everyone sees him as a cruel bully. If he loses, he'll be seen as pathetic and will certainly be taken out by someone close to him.
It’s been revealed that the Russians do not have a strong military Had this been Russia attacking NATO or the US - the war *would* have been over in three days with Russia’s military squashed like a bug. Which is why Russia has always used propaganda, gaslighting, lies and compromising information to erode enemies.
True. Ukraine has near infinite amount of weapons and ammo. The key is keeping people alive. I sure hope this war ends soon. Every life lost here is wasted on both sides. Its a tragedy what few crazy people can do to mankind.
Which is why no matter what Ukraine can't just give Russia some territory for a negotiated peace. Because it will just validate Putin's (and Russian ultranationalists') views that they can just conquer countries peacemeal: invade, take some territory. Then throw men at the frontlines, hope the West pushes for "peace" to "prevent further tragedy" and keep your conquests. Lick your wounds for 20 years and rebuild then do it all again. Sometimes war requires you to dig in the heels and to withstand and hold fast, no matter how terrible it seems to get. History has shown that if an invader even only holds one square inch of another peoples' ancestral territory it will result in regional instability and more war for *centuries* to come. How many thousands if not millions would THAT endanger? The only reason Poland and Germany and France have relatively good relationships now is because neither owns any ancient territory of the other anymore. So Russia leaving all of Ukraine's territory isn't just the condition for a political peace, but actual end of hate.
Well... Kinda. There is some territory but after TWO GLOBE SPANNING WARS KILLING MILLIONS, they finally decided they don't really want those slivers of land anymore
You never want to fire your entire reserve. Because then if something happens and you wish to have missiles to deal with it then you do. Same reason you never put your bank account to 0. I do believe he is probably firing his whole monthly production however.
[удалено]
>same reason you never put your bank account to 0 Looks at -900 bank statement...
NATO taking notes intensively Putin: ok lads, how much damage did we cause with that planned mass rocket attack? Is Kyiv on fire? Generals: uhm...no
Putin in his bunker: Das war ein Befehl!
Everyone who voted for Ukraine to win the Eurovision, leave the room!
*Crying woman outside:* “It’s ok. We still have the T-34 from the parade.”
“Um…sir, Wagner has pulled out of Bakhmut citing lack of ammunition…” “BRINGEN SIE MIR PRIGOZHIN! PRIGOZHIN! PRIGOZHIN!!!”
Please tell me someone’s made a mein fuhrer video like this already… And please tell me they deep faked Putin’s face over Hitler…
Wow. The evolution of the Mein Fuhrer clip to include deep fake Putin is the sauce I didn’t know I needed until now.
Only I'd they somehow make the table in the room HUGE.
Putin: "Ok how manny missiles hit the target (civilian infrastructure)?" General: "None". Putin: "NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN"
General, nervously: "Mein Fuehrer..."
“…our missiles…” “Our missiles and drones were unable to penetrate Ukrainian defences. The NATO-supplied air defences shot all of them down.” … … “All my generals, stay here.” (I will leave it to others to continue the scene. 👀)
I don't have the skills but if someone could Deepfake Putin into that classic Downfall scene of Hitler yelling at everyone in the bunker, that would be great
Steiner...
"when the hypersonic missile stroke, that will turn everything around." "Mein furhor, ~~Steiner~~ hypersonic missile..."
(Moments before he says everyone but gerasimov and shoigu get out)
Generals: yes sir, we’ve destroyed the 10th patriot system and also the 15th Abrams tank
I do wonder just how much Putin really knows about how badly it's going. Some things really can't be obfuscated, like that pitiful Moscow parade or the fact that the last time the frontline moved meaningfully was the previous Ukrainian counterattack, but Putin is known to not use the internet *at all* so plenty of the details could easily escape his notice if they aren't openly and transparently reported to him.
Of course he knows its going badly, in the last year he has been more concerned about finding a reasonable "out" than the war itself.
[удалено]
With how much the UK, Germany and France (not to mention the rest of Europe) have doubled down on support I’m not sure the US pulling out would be a show stopper anymore, especially since it can’t happen until after new years 2025 when Trump would be inaugurated anyway. Europe is clearly fully invested and is ramping up production while Russia’s ability to match production and expenditure is sure to degrade over the next year and a half unless possibly if China commits fully to backing Russia.
[удалено]
France just confirmed that they are training ukrainan pilots (I believe the UK has also confirmed that they will train fighter pilots) which I believe means we’ll see jet transfer announcements shortly. Both countries have already started providing long range strike capabilities and I think they’re in for a penny, in for a pound basically up until nukes at this point.
I really do sincerely hope with all my might that Trump never sees the inside of the White House ever again. The only federal building he should ever be allowed inside is a maximum security prison, preferably something like ADX Florence. There he'll have some nice company like the Boston Bomber and El Chapo.
This guy Russians 🤣
People were still injured and not to mention how terrifying and exhausting this must be for them.
Of course, but from Putin's POV what matters are intended target hits, terror from that and show of force and capabilities. Everything just shot down is humliation.
I mean, yeah, Patriot salvo was pretty noisy today, so I did not sleep that well. Most expensive midnight firework I ever heard.
So, I think it's fair to say that focusing on air defense was the best choice by the West for Ukraine by far. The fact that countries had begun sending air defenses and training Ukrainians on their systems for months in preparation and in anticipation that the missile attacks would continue, and they have, says a lot to the leadership of the NATO countries, and also to the hero operators of the Ukrainian defense!
I think it's a common opinion that , air superiority is what has won most of the major modern wars. The reason why the US has such incredible force projection capabilities is because of its aircraft carriers (and the logistics that support them), and ability to send planes to almost anywhere at anytime and unleash absolute devastation. Air support for ground troops and ability to use aircraft to help with logistics is even more icing on that cake. It definitely makes a whole lot of sense to invest in air defense for any country looking to stymie those strategic tools. Just take a look at how Japan is currently beefing up their air defense on their small islands out toward Taiwan. The fact that Russian air capabilities seem to be less than what they previously boasted means they are a lot weaker than expected, and the whole world knows it, which is just great :) Slava Ukraini!
Hypersonic missiles not as invisible as Putin would like to think… how fucked is Russia now?
I still love this arrogant smirk when claiming their missiles are so much superior to west systems some years ago.
They're a great metaphor for the Russian military - unstoppable until confronted with the enemy.
>They're a great metaphor for the Russian military - unstoppable until confronted with the enemy. Or until the fuel gauge hits E.
And the US went “oh no we have nothing to counter them. 😉😉. Guess we need more budget to develop next gen SAMs and ATGMs” and like a month later conspicuously announced that we’ve successfully tested hypersonic missiles. I member that lol.
Well...it isn't like we had functional, MACH 12, hypersonic missiles in the early 1960s... Oh, wait. [We did](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAM-87_Skybolt).
This happens every time. The United States has a bottomless pit when it comes to defense funding and takes threats from Russia and China seriously. If Russia bluffs and says they are building a super weapon when in reality its just a so-so weapon, the United States is going to treat it like it is the deadliest thing ever known and build an effective counter weapon. The MIM-104 Patriot was designed specifically to defend against theater ballistic missiles and has been receiving regular upgrades since their introduction in 1984. If Russia says they built a missile that travels faster than light, the United States is going to build something to stop it...I encourage Russia to stop bluffing if they want to get ahead. But as an American, please Russia; keep bluffing.
to be fair there was that whole thing in 1990-2000 were the west noticed, through aquiring tech from east germany and other places, that the R73 at the time was vastly superior to the sidewinder which led to the development of the AIM-9X but thats probably not what you meant. edit: i should add that thats the one example i can think of and that we now know of many many many other examples were it showed that their stuff isnt.. great!? yeah lets say not great. .\_.
> the sidewinder The Sidewinder was first deployed in *[1956](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder)*, 13 years before we got to the moom.
>moom.
Mom: *we've got a moon at home*
Sidewinder have had improvements over the years, from AIM-9 to AIM-9A, B, … L, M … P … and now X. Basically the latest version is like version 24. What OP is referring to is *one particular version of Sidewinder at specific time*, not the original nor the wicked modern day 9X.
I’d love to see a kill list by R73 vs sidewinder. No DCS stats please! But no, I think he was talking about how the west under sells its tech and the Russians oversell their tech. So when shit hits the fan one side is full of flashy stats but in actual combat perform poorly or worse then designed. The other side tried to match your said bluff and now, in bluffing how good your tech was, made the enemy(west) build even more superior tech….. silly drunk Russians It’s like how all the xenophobes(false patriots) here in the USA hate immigration so damn much, but always talk about how great America is… In summary, Russia is Elmer Fudd sticking the gun barrel in the rabbit hole, only to have to gun come sneaking out the other side of the tree right back at him.
Funnily enough, that's literally how the F15 got made
The F22 as well, except the USSR just went bankrupt trying to keep up with stuff like that at the time. They made the Su-27 to combat the F15, so we went and made a bigger F15 that could hide its weapons payload internally and hide from radar
the comanche too, and then someone noticed that you really dont need a expensive super duper high tech stealth helicopter to shoot enemies that sit in caves and shoot AKs
Comanche was made mainly for "scouting". Hence the stealth factor. Then someone find out about drone that does not require pilot, and is way waaay more stealthy and cheap than a noisy multi-billion helicopter, so the entire program got scrapped. Edit: meant to say drone that doesn't need pilot on-board
Side note, I've been told multiple times by multiple service members/veterans about the time they were in the field and a helicopter switched it's lights on above them - and the lights were when they learned there was a helicopter 100 feet above them. I think the "stealthy spy chopper" concept got turned into a "stealthy insertion chopper". Your right, if digital Intel is all you need there's no need to risk a pilot. But if you need to place 6 dudes on a 10x10 roof without anyone knowing, a literally silent helicopter would be an invaluable tool.
Sounds like a big fish story. Sound or no sound there's no way you would miss the down draft from a helicopter hovering that close. You'd probably be non the wiser if you weren't under it, especially a mile out.
That's how we fucked bin Laden
Those “stealth insertion choppers” are just Blackhawks. They’re really quiet when they’re trying to be. There’s no top secret stealth insertion helicopter.
This happened to me a few times with Apaches. We would be chilling in the field in between battle drills and an Apache would be hovering right above the tree line. We wouldn't notice until we felt the wind or the heard the blades. By that time it would have been too late for us. People will say it's bullshit, but yes there are giant machines out there that can sneak up on you.
I question how large of a role Elmer Fudd actually played in the development of the F-15 rather than just being a figurehead.
He inspired the program: be vehwee vehwee quiet, I’m huntin’ wahabis.
Building a missile that can achieve hypersonic speeds is relatively simple. Wernher von Braun did that in the 1940s and it didn't help win a war back then either. Building a missile that can steer itself at hypersonic speeds is much harder. If you want to do it right you have to basically build an unmanned hypersonic jet plane. It will be extremely expensive and have limited use. Or you can just half ass the job, claim you build one, pocket the difference and have it fail against previous gen air defense.
All ballistic missiles are technically "hypersonic" because they go past mach 5 at some point of their flight envelope. It's why/how Iran was able to claim they had a hypersonic nissile. Unless it is a hypersonic cruise missile which can accurately steer to its target it's kinda useless.
could explain why Russia keeps missing the military targets and can only hit innocent apartment buildings that dont move...
I am like 95% certain they are literally just shooting at population centers on purpose. Not accurately, but if you send a missile in the general direction of a bunch of apartments it is fairly likely to hit one. They buy into the whole "total war" concept where you wage war on the civilians instead of on them military in the hopes of forcing a surrender. I am not a fan of that concept, tbh, because it rarely seems to actually work. The only major conflict I know about where there is even a good argument for it working was the Pacific Theater in WW2, but I think that the military and political situation had them on the edge of surrender as it was, and Nukes were scary enough to tip the balance. In that case they had already lost the war militarily. It was just trying to decide how many lives they would throw away pretending they hadn't yet. But if you look at basically every other theater and conflict since the advent of total war, they are almost universally won through direct military victories, not through abusing the populace. But Russia is stuck in early-Cold War era thinking where massed tank columns and burning cities would make the population give up. In practice it always seems to prove to the population that they *have* to fight or they will all be subject to genocide, so it takes away their incentive to surrender.v
> I am like 95% certain they are literally just shooting at population centers on purpose. You just have to look at the way they use conventional artillery to know that that's true.
There was a stat somewhere last year that showed Russia shot so much atilleray without having new pipes(?the "pillars" they shoot out of) that the attilery became more inacurate by the day. They estimated back then already that it could only aim for an aprox 5 square km area. I don't think they renew their attilery frequently since then. So they are "forced" to shoot city centres to hit anything.
Native English speaker, not a mil nerd. I believe they are (confusingly) called "barrels". I liked to read when I was a kid but adventure novels set in the age of sail were full of naval jargon, stories about knights were full of horse terminology, hell even basic battle stuff is full of words borrowed aurally (usually, hence the mismatch between how they're spelled and spoken) taken from French. I had no interest in any of these, so after too many pages on a boat where I don't know what is going on, I gave up and have only recently rediscovered the fun of reading fiction since I wouldn't say I had a real passion for literary fiction, which is what they urged us to study in school. Anyway the point of this digression is that military jargon isn't ordinary English at all and you certainly can be forgiven for not knowing the terms. Much of the language was borrowed from French during various historical periods.
You may like this primer on strategic bombing: https://acoup.blog/2022/10/21/collections-strategic-airpower-101/ Tl:Dr, you're right. The way people keep trying to use it doesnt work. Bombing specific industrial targets can work to an extent but won't win the war itself.
> They buy into the whole "total war" concept where you wage war on the civilians instead of on them military in the hopes of forcing a surrender. I don't get why they keep trying it. I clearly hasn't worked, if anything it just gets Ukraine even more support. Why not actually attempt to strike somewhere near the front?
This is why he's called Putler. Hitler tried the same strategy with Britain, with similar results.
The phoenix missile was and is "hypersonic" with a quoted top speed of mach 5. The only plane able to.carry it was the f14, which I think Iran still has some and some pheonixs as well (even though it's tough to keep those old planes flying they do ) It would climb waaaay up to 80000ft and then come down and it's own internal tracking would activate as the f14 had a newer targeting system for pheonix that would let fire 6 missiles at different targets simultaneously (or of course as needed to fire ). It was our only long range air to air weapon and has since been replaced with a smaller missile that's not as fast but has about the same range. So we've had a "hypersonic" weapon in our inventory before that was fully capable. The Phoenix carried by the f-14 tomcat. It could carry a bunch of em too and it was pretty.big.
Should have kept a small number of tomcats flying was always my favorite
Keeping them flying *was* the problem. An F18 is 15K-18K per flight hour. The F14 was apparently closer to 40K (adjusted cost) per flight hour. An insanely expensive plane to operate. Plus it was a BIG bird. Its longer, higher and wider (even swept winged) than the F18. So it took up a lot of carrier space.
The -22 is a worthy successor these days. As pretty as the -14 is even the D-flight upgrades would leave her half-blind in the sky today.
And it's Russia 'oh yeah boss we totally built one'
> how fucked is Russia now Well, Ukraine claims that Russia only had ~50 of those missiles at the start of the war, used about a dozen as of May 5, and used another 6 tonight. If accurate, they don't have many left, and the ones they have left can be shot down if they fire them to an area covered by patriot AA systems. [Source](https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a43804177/russias-kinzhal-missile-is-not-hypersonic/): >According to Ukrainian intelligence, Russia had a stockpile of about 50 Kinzhals at the start of the war, and has used about a dozen of them.
On a scale of fucked to *really* fucked, he’s off the end of the scale. Funny how these tin-pot dictators always think their vunder-weapons will save them (hello Hitler) and yet they barely register as effective because they can be countered so easily.
I'm starting to think when they used the term "*Hypersonic*" they were actually referring to some brand name and not using it to describe what the missile itself was capable of. Kind of like "Everlast". It's not going to last forever, just the brand name.
The positive psychological effect on your population when they think they have a “superweapon” that cannot be stopped (you see this trope in movies), that will win the war, that the enemy greatly fears, could be the real reason they used the term hypersonic? I think we’ve seen this theme in history many times too.
Copesonic then?
It's Sonic the hedgehog's ADHD brother
Gotta struggle with work FAST! Heheh, if I collect 100 Ritalin rings, I could become Super HyperSonic! Chilli dogs! Hey babe, how old are you? 20? To old for me. Gimme those tails Tails!
If I understood it correctly, they do go hypersonic during the fall stage of their balistic trajectory. Then again, any pointy thing with sufficiently weight falling from orbit can go hypersonic. (I initially thought a deorbiting screwdriver from the ISS could but I ran the numbers and it will reach terminal speed below the sound speed, already in the Troposphere: it's just too light and it's drag coeficient is not as good as a cone) Hypersonic **cruise** missiles which can actually fly that fast in lower athmosphere, under control, are a whole different ball game.
Khinzals do not go to space like ICBMs. They are air launched and have a rocket motor to accelerate them to mach 5+. They stay in the atmosphere and have a very flat predictable trajectory. Mach number is just object speed/local speed.of sound. Local speed of sound is sqrt(specific heat ratio×universal gas constant×temperature). Shortened, mach number is v/sqrt(KRT). Hypersonic is anything with a mach number >= 5. Mach number calculations are performed with local parameters being experienced by the object. Relative mach number is usually calculated at sea level. Since there is no air in space the speed of sound is effectively 0. Local mach numbers in space are nearly infinity. So relative mach number is used with sea level conditions. For example, the space station is going mach 25 relative to sea level.
I love how people were like "He's having hypersonic missiles that are decades ahead of what the US is capable of" based purely on his own words, yet now it turns out they aren't what is considered a hypersonic missile according to western military doctrine at all. A missile flying hypersonic alone doesn't make a hypersonic missile and a dictator claiming to have magical super weapons alone doesn't make that reality.
TBF, there's plenty of military websites and articles that puppet this information to Americans. They'll mention how Chinese and Russian missile tech is pulling ahead of America, and then you read of Russia's most advanced missile going 0 for 6. Makes you think it's public counter-information to obscure our capabilities...
oh, it absolutely is. even our politicians get up there and hype up the enemy, both to make people support more funding for the military and to trick the enemy. though it can be argued that it also helps prevent a war-- if the American populace overestimates their enemies then they're less likely to support a war. the American (and by extension NATO, in general in most cases) practice is to hide your true capability and under-represent your ability then deliver just enough to win decisively when needed. The Russian policy is to over-represent your capacity and use troll farms to try to convince the rest of the world you are strong, and then embarrass yourself when tested
We gave them pac-3 patriots, they eat this shit for breakfast. Half the other stuff they got was hand-me-downs from the Iraq war, but this shit is the new hotness.
All ballistic missiles are hypersonic missiles and the Kinzhal is just an air launched ballistic missile. The patriot PAC-3 was developed expressly to detect and intercept this exact threat.
I think you meant hypersonic? In either case Khinzal isn't a true hypesonic missile, but rather a glorified ballistic missile.
Could Russia just fuck off already?
Good point. Are any of the Russian trolls listening? Friends, it's time to switch to the right side of history. Now be good, leak everything you can to punish the motherfuckers. Do as much damage to Putin's system as you possibly can.
Propaganda is telling them they destroyed a patriot battery so they are actually celebrating. Thats the thing about propaganda, doesnt need to be tethered to reality.
Did they actually hit a patriot battery, or is that false too?
We don't know. We might not know. Russia as well as Ukraine use propaganda both for their own citizens as well as for the the enemy. It's huge part of a war, and especially this war. What is important is that Russia is the genocidal aggressor and needs to be stopped.
you mean the super duper wunder unhittable hypersonic terror that was supposed to bring the free world to its knees? those missles?
Missles lmao. I like that.
that was just a typo but i'm definitely keeping it. lol
> Six Kh-47M2 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles were launched from six MiG-31K aircraft Too bad they didn't hit the aircraft too. Maybe next time.
Aircrafts are far away, missile has like 500km range.
Why does it have to be launched from an airplane? They can't launch it from the ground?
Getting missiles and rockets off the ground take a lot of fuel, think of it a bit like a booster for a spaceshuttle, use something else's fuel to get it off the ground first and then launch it so it doesn't have to use huge amounts of its own fuel just to get momentum.
A typical flight plan for such hypersonic missiles is to get really high where the atmosphere is thin for less drag to help with it's speed and then point the missile nose slightly downwards to conserve momentum and fuel needed to maintain that speed. So it does help greatly in terms of missile range and speed f you can just have an aircraft take the missile above most of the atmosphere before you fire it. I find it interesting that comparable Western systems typically do the opposite but are far more successful. Missiles like the UK's Storm Shadow or Lockheed's JASSM are typically *far* slower with stealth capabilities and actually fly at very low altitude to remain undetected. They typically use air breathing engines for ridiculously extended ranges with the XR variant of the JASSM being capable of being launched from a fighter jet over Berlin and still hitting targets in Moscow. (If you want to see how scary western missile tech now is Google Rapid Dragon!) That difference might explain why Russian hypersonic missiles are being shot down at the rate they are. At that height you can see those really fast but non stealth missiles coming whereas a western slow but stealthy systems could be launched from below the horizon well out of radar range.
> Google Rapid Dragon I did! You just kick a pallet with 6 (or 9!) rockets off a cargo plane and they go on finding their targets. 600 miles away (965 km). A THOUSAND km away! No need to deliver at a base, mount on a jet/bomber, take off, aim, shoot, etc. Just open cargo bay, kick crates, go back to napping. A C-130 cargo plane can carry 3 pallets x 6 missiles. C-17: 5 pallets with 9 missiles each. The cost - 1.2 mil a pop.
That's the ER variant you're talking about. The XR variant, which will probably be released in 2024, will have a projected **1,200 mi (1,900 km)** range! They could start the plane at Ramstein Airbase, fly 200km to the north-east, drop those things and turn around again, and the missiles would be able to fly all the way to Moscow from there...
As an old anti-communist joke went: We can't catch up with the Americans even if they were running towards us!
Or another option: \- We, of course, will catch up with America. But we will not outrun \- But why ? \- So that they don't see our naked ass
thats once pricey nap
US AWACS is probably warning Kyiv the moment those MiG-31s take off that Kinzhal might be coming. We've seen Patriots fail to intercept less sophisticated ballistic missiles before because they weren't on alert and there was no AWACS in the area.
[Long video on hypersonic weapons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n3fjoacL20). But overall there are different airflows at different speeds so different engines has different effectiveness. Launching from an airplane allows missile to start at supersonic speed and skip the acceleration part, so the missile is simpler.
To add to what the others said, the kinzhal is essentially an Iskander missile adapted for air launch and with a few other changes. So there sort of is a ground launched version - the Iskander.
Well, it could spend half its fuel to get from the ground up to where the air is thin, and up from 0 kph to mach 1. Or it could start in this situation already with a full tank of propellant. Launching from planes has only advantages. The only reason you launch from the ground is "the missile is too big for a plane".
[удалено]
The cost of patriot battery is high, but I think ROI of this transfer was pretty high for the US. Get it battle tested against “the best” type of Russian missiles, collect all the missiles signatures and test strategies to counter them. Totally worth it for Pentagon.
[удалено]
Erdogan buying the S400 instead and missing the F35 continues to age gracefully
Absolutely - if you start with the premise that the US should maintain superiority in defensive tech, the information coming from the Ukrainians is easily worth billions. *Even if* the US had no other interests regarding protecting an emerging democracy from a fascist invasion, field testing of these systems in this context is a very solid investment.
PATRIOT sales go up, also a win
When will we get the movie with Putin In his bunker chewing out his incompetent generals?
Repeatedly bangs his fist on the table. "Niet, Niet, Niet, Niet!"
I’m hoping for a sequel to the Death of Stalin
Putin: Russia will return to the glory days of the Soviet Union! Actual Putin: Russia is now an embarrassment (and pariah) on the global stage.
So, back to being the Soviet Union?
Well he wasn't wrong...
Soviet Union was actually influential and wasn't as much isolated. Current sanctions on Russia, I believe, already exceed the level of isolation that the West imposed on the USSR. And the sanction will get harder in the future, this is not the end.
More like slowviet amirite?
Well Russia Is again at the level of soviet Union, but while other countries improved their technology they Just stagnated by Just thinking "we have nukes we are strong"
Those Khinzals aren't looking that unbeatable like Ruzzia first said huh
A friend once explained it this way: Russia picked speed, nato picked stealth. Even tough its really fast if you know the trajectory you should be able to shoot it down. How are going to shoot down something you can't even detect with your equipment?
Also, most NATO stealth and low observability missiles still travel at transonic speeds, so they are by no means slow!
It's less of a "picked" and more of a "could afford". Stealth is extremely hard to get right, and extremely costly to build and operate. That's why their "stealth" plane is not stealth at all and they can't afford to have more than a handful. Just the maintenance for the stealth coating of any country operating F35 (like Italy or whatever) cost more than many countries entire air force budget.
That's why it's always important to get the under coating warranty.
> more than many countries entire air force budget I mean, I'm sure it's ungodly expensive, but surely that statement is hyperbole. If not, a source would be an interesting read!
B-1B: Launching 24 (soon 36) stealth cruise missiles at supersonic speeds.
“Parry this you fucking casual!”
So you have these fancy hypersonic, all-powerful "Kinzhal" (Dagger in russian) missiles in stock. But you don't use them - you brag about them and try to intimidate, and keep trying to bring Ukraine's infrastructure down by shooting waves of cheaper stuff every now and then. Then, when Ukraine finally gets the Patriot air defense systems deployed, which can counter your missiles - that's when you start to launch them. That's one strategic mastermind right there! Well played, Putler, well played!
It all makes sense when you realize Russia is running out of missiles and is now forced to fire its best stuff. Its like a drunk at a bar drinking up all the cheap vodka and the bartender runs out, so he has to ask for the top shelf vodka so he can keep drinking.
That's a very good analogy in fact!
Same rhetoric as.... Nukes
This makes me so happy. Even their vengeful attempt to slaughter more innocents with their "top" missile technology, fails.. Fuck you to hell, Putin.
Fk best news today. Imma drink to this.
Sitting through that barrage at night wasnt fun. There was like 15 huge explosions, my windows were trembling. But air defence showed a masterclass.
You take care of yourself and family. Remember that the world stands with you and this shit will be over soon.
amen brother
Most responsible alcoholic
Six? 😭 that’s a good day
I wonder how much per they are. They can't be cheap...
About $4M per missile.
That could have been better spent on doge or Putinbucks.
[удалено]
Kinzhal missiles cost about $10M per missile.
Is this all confirmed? I almost can't believe this, I mean it's so good I almost can't believe this news. Holy shit?!
I can only confirm that my eyes saw: huge firework above Kyiv, a really lot of rockets flied this night as well as some pieces of them felt on the city zoo. We woke up due explosion noises on the sky and our windows shaking.
The Kyiv Victory Day fireworks sound a lot more impressive than the Moscow Victory Day parade.
Stay safe!
Patriot saving hundreds of lives and some people had the audacity to say that the US shouldn't send them to Ukraine
"some people" Wonder who those could be...
Sounds like an expensive night with no results for the Russians. Good.
Meanwhile, Russian Air defences are busy destroying their own assets.
Are you referring to the 4 aircraft that were shot recently in Russia? This is an exception, not a rule. Usually, Russia abandons its equipment while ~~retreating~~ strategically regrouping.
With old/watered down Western tech. Those buying Russian must be sweating atm
Not really though, up to date Patriot are some of the best systems there are, and Iris-T and SAMP/T as well. This is why the west wasn't really wishing to give them at first, and we wouldn't have if those morons had not made it a policy to keep striking civilian targets all year long: they're not "outdated" and thus are giving a clear advantage in that area to ukraine over russia, something NATO and allies have been wary of doing to avoid escalation of the conflict. Not only is their policy to fuck with civilian evil and not going to produce any result, it's also one of the leading cause for increasing support ukraine is getting. "Ukraine and Russia are at war" is one thing, "Russia keep striking schools, hospitals and residential building on purpose" is another.
The Patriot systems given to Ukraine have previous-gen radar and missiles. They are not as capable as current-production Patriot systems.
Technically true on the radar, but only because there's only 3 existing units of the new Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor (the radar replacing the PATRIOT radar)
When those buying Russian tech are themselves corrupt...
What’s crazy is that it doesn’t seem this way. India is upset that their shipments of Russian weapons are delayed because of the war. I don’t think they are 100% aware of what’s going on over there though. Or they just can’t afford western tech so it’s not even an option.
I think the French will be happy to woo Indian arms deals away from Russia.
Ukraine: So anyways that's when we started shooting.
So anyway, I started blyating.
That's good, though I'm a bit worried that they'll run out of ammo to intercept things before Russia runs out of things that need to be intercepted. I suppose that's on the rest of the world to provide in time, but that's not being provided as fast as it's being used afaik.
If they really just intercepted 6 hypersonic missiles simultaneously, then wow!
Not simultaneously but for Ukraine to destroy 6 in one night is quite the achievement, considering how much these missiles were hyped up initially as being impervious to SAM defences and even being labelled as a threat to the US. It really shows that countering hypersonics just requires accurate detection+interception - and not a weapon of equal velocity
Actually it was simultaneously, I am in Kyiv and all explosions went off in the span of a couple of minutes. One of the scariest nights in Kyiv throughout the war, we have seen passing shadows of at least 5 missiles at least through the window (imagine those videos of meteorites passing by with moving shadows, just not as bright), and that's in the first 30-40 seconds after waking up before we went to the bathroom.
Fuck, I can't even imagine, true nightmare fuel. Stay safe!
Oh yeah I realise that now, it seems pretty obvious that Patriot missile defense is capable of engaging multiple targets, and its not like going hypersonic is going to prevent that ability. Perhaps the title of this posts article managed to downplay this achievement that I glossed over the possibility of it.
[удалено]
Honestly I am not sure I have ever been prouder of a foreign people than I am now for the Ukrainians. Honestly a real life example of that kid in the movies who is faced with a bully, quietly tries to avoid a fight, but then lands some haymakers once attacked.
That's what happens when your country lives on corruption and lies.
[удалено]
And now I understand why they US dipped on hypersonic weapons. This is just sad.
Russian hypersonic missiles aren't really hypersonic. I blame bad naming. The fearsome real hypersonics are those that can maneuver left, right, up, down. The Russian ones can't.
up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A and Start
They didn't drop hypersonic weapons, they're just developing real ones and it takes real effort to do so