Russian special military operation in Ukraine #42

Well if you want cheap and nasty...

KN-25 has stated range of 380km or 240 miles

Though I think drones are better for this mid range task, more expendable, and cheap

GarryB wrote:

30 PAC3 rounds to take out 1 Kinzhal??

If the target was a Kinzhal then they would be boasting about defeating it if they managed to hit it...

actually they did intercept 2 Kinzhals. The first with Patriot radar and the second one with launcher.

Arkanghelsk wrote:

KN-25 has stated range of 380km or 240 miles

Though I think  drones are better for this mid range task, more expendable,  and cheap

Drones are very slow. You still need a mix of rockets, drones, smart cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and aeroballistic missiles.

Rockets for area targeting in the open.
Drones for cheap targeting of fixed targets or mobile ones that doesn't require more than a grenade like warhead (lancet).
Cruise missiles to evade AD zones and bring a powerfull warhead on the target.
Ballistic missiles to target very quickly with a flight time of few minutes.
Aeroballistic missiles for longer range than ballistic missiles with same advantages.

Amercians have to send THAAD. ASAP.



From John Helmer

franco wrote:Believe Kissinger was once quoted as saying the only thing worse then being an enemy of the USA, was being an ally.

Germany found that out the hard way and so will Poland.

The Ukraine is in the process of finding it out but I don't think they get it just yet

Hole wrote:

It is an overkill for most of the targets.

You mean a smaller brother for Iskander. Or a bigger brother for Smerch/Tornado-S.

I don't see why Belarus doesn't hand over a few Polonez-M ideal not as expensive as Iskander and have a range of 290km would be a nice way to test them and save money.

As Alamo stated about Tornado/smerch getting longer range missiles etc, I think it's very plausible that a Tornado/Smerch system could fit a pack of four longer range and heavier warhead this would give Russia the similar type of system as Polonez-M I think a range of 300km would be enough if they can make it longer then fine.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Godric wrote:edit a wee bit off topic, looks like UK's Royal Navy suffering from more sabotage, this time 60 cables destroyed

[]
more than likely disgruntled Scots who are being denied there independence from the vile and corrupt UK as the ships are built in Scotland, hopefully this is the first of many such fightbacks against the UK by my fellow country men next target should be bases in Scotland, the people of Arbroath used to love beating the crap out of the English marines stationed nearby until they closed the base

meh those were the same "friends of Ukraine" who detonated North Streams

Don't confuse Westminster foreign policy with what the Scots think and want. It's different.

PapaDragon wrote:

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:...I doubt any Kinzhals were intercepted at all, though they sure tried. Tried to the tune of $200 million worth of missiles....

Let's get one thing straight: Nobody can intercept Kizhal at this point in time, it's Mach 10+ ripping down vertically

Americans can't, Russians can't, if they claim otherwise they are full of shit

Only way it doesn’t hit is if it malfunctions

You can if its ballistic is relatively simple, enables you to somehow predict its route beforehand and intercept it at the place you expect it can be.

Evasiveness is not only about speed, but also about the complexity of the maneuverment.

higurashihougi wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

Dr.Snufflebug wrote:...I doubt any Kinzhals were intercepted at all, though they sure tried. Tried to the tune of $200 million worth of missiles....

Let's get one thing straight: Nobody can intercept Kizhal at this point in time, it's Mach 10+ ripping down vertically

Americans can't, Russians can't, if they claim otherwise they are full of shit

Only way it doesn’t hit is if it malfunctions

You can if its ballistic is relatively simple, enables you to somehow predict its route beforehand and intercept it at the place you expect it can be.

Evasiveness is not only about speed, but also about the complexity of the maneuverment.

Kinzhal is not ballistic, unless its at the very limit of its range. if it has fuel left, it will still be accelerating in a very steep dive, when it will turn, what trajectory it will take on terminal stage is all variable. Good luck trying to compute all that an intercept it. The if it has fuel it can still make small tweaks to its trajectory. Terminal stage could be about 8 sec from 20000m @ mach 7, Say you hit a 1 in a million shot and detonated it at 4000m with cannon fire. That just means you are gonna receive a blast from gods own shotgun @ mach 2 to 3.

As for depleted uranium it doesn't need to disintegrate to contaminate the place, it just has to reach the soil and it will be doing damage for decades to come

DU really only becomes dangerous when it is broken down... firing it through a tank gun or a 25mm cannon on a Bradley or a 30mm cannon on an A-10 or a 20mm Vulcan cannon, when it hits metal it burns and is reduced to powder.

Storing it in a big factory with ammo and fuel and making that explode and burn will release DU particles into the air and allow them to also get into the soil and is very bad.

USA is kinda rough on their allies

The US does not have allies, they have interests.

Though I think drones are better for this mid range task, more expendable, and cheap

Drones are slower but seem to be getting through anyway.

Drones are very slow. You still need a mix of rockets, drones, smart cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and aeroballistic missiles.

They have.

Making them faster means rocket fuel which means rather more expensive and fewer per platform and rather more restrictions on the payload that can be carried.

Rockets for area targeting in the open.
Drones for cheap targeting of fixed targets or mobile ones that doesn't require more than a grenade like warhead (lancet).
Cruise missiles to evade AD zones and bring a powerfull warhead on the target.
Ballistic missiles to target very quickly with a flight time of few minutes.
Aeroballistic missiles for longer range than ballistic missiles with same advantages.

The more expensive stuff like AD evading missiles should be used to destroy the AD and then cheaper simpler weapons can hit targets and overwhelm remaining defences because they are cheap and simple and can be made in enormous numbers.

I don't see why Belarus doesn't hand over a few Polonez-M ideal not as expensive as Iskander and have a range of 290km would be a nice way to test them and save money.

The problem is the same as for HIMARS... quite often the small warhead is not sufficient and often hitting a target multiple times doesn't make things better.

A 650kg warhead from an Iskander has more punch and with the incoming missiles speed it adds punch too, while extended range rockets would achieve such range by reduced warheads so maybe 80kg or even 50kg warheads... not something to be sneezed at but still a bit small for a lot of targets.

Such rockets are optimised for area targets like a staging area for enemy armour where a volley of several dozen rockets releasing submunitions with anti armour warheads in top attack mode can really stop a counter offensive.

An Iskander with a cluster munition warhead could do similar work but you would need a few.

Low flying drones and hypersonic daggers from space would be the best option for taking down a Patriot battery because like most large SAMs it is not really ideal for such threats and they don't seem to have any TOR or Pantsir like systems to defend them.

You can if its ballistic is relatively simple, enables you to somehow predict its route beforehand and intercept it at the place you expect it can be.

Evasiveness is not only about speed, but also about the complexity of the maneuverment.

They are designed to penetrate IADS networks like those on a US carrier group or Soviet air defence system, they have onboard sensors to detect threats and air defences and they release decoys and jammers and chaff and actively manouver to evade interception.

A normal ballistic target is like a rock someone has thrown or a ball someone has hit... a hypersonic manouvering target is more like a manned aircraft actively evading incoming fire to increase its chance of getting through like a demented kamikaze pilot.

I would think launching and coordinating groups of SAMs might be a solution but it will still be a problem most of the time.

Not an accident that the Russians seem to only launch one missile per target...

BTW with all that DU ammo gone those British tanks are going to be a lot less useful because they can't just use Leopard 120mm ammo, and I rather doubt the Brits have huge amounts they can send to replace that which has been lost.

Medvedev said this 

"temporarily occupied Poland and our Baltic provinces"

---

This is a bit over the top. It kinda feeds into some narratives in the Western media. I dunno. It's all a lost cause anyway so I guess it doesn't matter. I'm just saying , there will be professors like Richard Sakwa who will have to explain this one away.

Yes, I also think that the range of the 9M729 (Iskander-K) cruise missile will now certainly increase and that it will be the THIRD long-range subsonic missile, along with the 3M14 Kalibr and the X-101. On the other hand, hypersonic flight speed is reached by 9M723 Iskander-M, H47M2 Kinzhal and 3M22 Zircon.

To make a long story short, I am of the opinion that it is cheaper to build ground platforms for Zircon (which has already been written about), while Iskander-K will almost certainly get a very long-range missile.
Placing long-range missiles greater than 2000 km on the Iskander-K system would also mean that the Russian Navy no longer has to spend on incomplete ships (they have no sonar, no anti-submarine weapons while the air defense is only close range) like the 21631 Buyan-M and 22800 Karakturt, but that the money can be diverted to the construction of "pure-blooded" multipurpose warships such as the 20380/5 corvette and 22350 frigate.
That alone can save on the construction of project 636.3 diesel-electric submarines (I'm not a fan of them) because I consider them useless and obsolete (except for sonar and weapons) in the Northern and Pacific fleets. Black Sea and Baltic - OK, until Russia builds more modern submarines than Project 677 - I'm also not a fan. I'm not a fan of Russian non-nuclear submarines.


As for missiles with a range of less than 500 kilometers, the "Eagle strike-62" looks convincing to me, the range of which, depending on the variant, ranges up to 280 or up to 400 km. The missile from the "Eagle strike-18" system has a range of 220 to 500+ km, the last phase of the flight is supersonic and is 2.5 to 3 mach.
Yes, I am sure that Russia will also go in this direction.


Eagle strike-62

The fact that PAC3 fired over 30 missiles to intercept just one Kinzhal (assuming it was successfully intercepted) suggests that the Kinzhal is capable of maneuvering not only in the terminal phase but also throughout its flight

Backman wrote:


This is a bit over the top. It kinda feeds into some narratives in the Western media. I dunno. It's all a lost cause anyway so I guess it doesn't matter. I'm just saying , there will be professors like Richard Sakwa who will have to explain this one away.

What makes you think poland will remain occupied?

This is one of the most positive PR releases from our MoD since the start of the hostilities, with virtually no qualifications.



Edit

Strange, no mention of damaged Patriots

Who cares about that piece of crap ? Everyone believes more in OSINT than in this crap.

At the rate they are going the UA won't have any depots left soon.