advertisement


Ukraine V

The real loss isn't they've wasted millions of roubles on expensive fireworks, it's that the idea that their missiles are impervious to Western air defence systems is, erm, bunk.

Which also weakens the propaganda that Russian threats and aggression, wherever it may be targeted, cannot be thwarted.

dont expect miracles and non-fake news from our russian american boy

@anubisgrau,

You need to take a look in the mirror; lots of shaving required.

John
 
The real loss isn't they've wasted millions of roubles on expensive fireworks, it's that the idea that their missiles are impervious to Western air defence systems is, erm, bunk.

No one with a functioning brain believed that nonsense though. Anyway, some idea of cost:

"It's estimated that #Russia spent "about US$155 million in ammunition last night. I don't think Russia can sustain this kind of attack any further. But right now, they're testing out where the air defenses are, particularly the US Patriots." Mark Hertling on CNN.
 
The real loss isn't they've wasted millions of roubles on expensive fireworks, it's that the idea that their missiles are impervious to Western air defence systems is, erm, bunk.
I suspect those missiles are fast, but they really light up the sky, from a long way off, and they stick to a straight line pretty much....
 
I suspect those missiles are fast, but they really light up the sky, from a long way off, and they stick to a straight line pretty much....

They are apparently based on the Iskander missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal) which means that they possibly have thrust vectoring to allow some evasion manoeuvering in terminal phase and by then, there's no rocket burning.

But, besides, Patriots target by radar, so IR signatures don't matter.
 
No one with a functioning brain believed that nonsense though. Anyway, some idea of cost:

"It's estimated that #Russia spent "about US$155 million in ammunition last night. I don't think Russia can sustain this kind of attack any further. But right now, they're testing out where the air defenses are, particularly the US Patriots." Mark Hertling on CNN.
Keep in mind that Patriot systems are highly mobile and can be moved and deployed very quickly.
 
They are apparently based on the Iskander missile (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal) which means that they possibly have thrust vectoring to allow some evasion manoeuvering in terminal phase and by then, there's no rocket burning.

But, besides, Patriots target by radar, so IR signatures don't matter.
All rocket-type missiles of any size are very fast by virtue of form factor and design. Even the first such missile - German V2 - was essentially hypersonic. All modern surface-surface missiles are hypersonic at portions of their trajectories.

Kinzhal is a surface-surface missile that is adapted for air-launch. It gets a Mach1+ assist from the Mig-31 and climbs fast to tens of km, spending most of it's flight in very sparse atmosphere where drag is very low and it's relatively easy to fly very fast. Every space going rocket gets to Mach20+.

However, once it gets close to the target it enters a deep vertical dive and falls to Earth inertially - it's RM has long since burned out. As it enters the low atmosphere, it dramatically slows down - like everything that falls to Earth from space. In the intercept battle space, Kinzhal is probably about Mach4.

Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3 are at similar speeds at intercept. If Kinzhal maneuvers near the target, it's not a lot - large maneuvers at Mach4 in dense atmosphere generate large g loads and take you off course quickly - and you no longer have time to get back on track.

Interceptor missiles are typically made to achieve high maneuver g factors - and for a variety of technical reasons, surface attack missiles are not. One of them is the intended target - Kinzhal carries a heavy warhead to destroy a large building, while PAC-2 has a much smaller warhead to destroy an airplane or a missile. PAC-3 has no warhead at all (it does carry solid rods along its body that are pushed off during intercept to enhance the lethal diameter), so it can maneuver faster than Kinzhal. And the interceptor's job is easier, since Kinzhal is falling vertically from space - *all* the interceptor have to do is position itself in Kinzhal's path. At Mach8 total combined speed, any contact with the PAC-3 body or the rods will not only make large holes, but will throw the Kinzhal off the stable near ballistic flight into an uncontrolled tumble, rapid deceleration and immediate structural breakup.

However, since it's in a vertical fall over the target anyway, pieces of the Kinzhal will fall down slowly under gravity, breaking cars, setting things on fire and generally creating a nuisance in the city environment. But it's far less dangerous that a half kiloton fully fused high explosive warhead that Kinzhal carries. Note there were no deaths reported after the fierce engagement in the skies.
 
All rocket-type missiles of any size are very fast by virtue of form factor and design. Even the first such missile - German V2 - was essentially hypersonic. All modern surface-surface missiles are hypersonic at portions of their trajectories.

Kinzhal is a surface-surface missile that is adapted for air-launch. It gets a Mach1+ assist from the Mig-31 and climbs fast to tens of km, spending most of it's flight in very sparse atmosphere where drag is very low and it's relatively easy to fly very fast. Every space going rocket gets to Mach20+.

However, once it gets close to the target it enters a deep vertical dive and falls to Earth inertially - it's RM has long since burned out. As it enters the low atmosphere, it dramatically slows down - like everything that falls to Earth from space. In the intercept battle space, Kinzhal is probably about Mach4.

Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3 are at similar speeds at intercept. If Kinzhal maneuvers near the target, it's not a lot - large maneuvers at Mach4 in dense atmosphere generate large g loads and take you off course quickly - and you no longer have time to get back on track.

Interceptor missiles are typically made to achieve high maneuver g factors - and for a variety of technical reasons, surface attack missiles are not. One of them is the intended target - Kinzhal carries a heavy warhead to destroy a large building, while PAC-2 has a much smaller warhead to destroy an airplane or a missile. PAC-3 has no warhead at all (it does carry solid rods along its body that are pushed off during intercept to enhance the lethal diameter), so it can maneuver faster than Kinzhal. And the interceptor's job is easier, since Kinzhal is falling vertically from space - *all* the interceptor have to do is position itself in Kinzhal's path. At Mach8 total combined speed, any contact with the PAC-3 body or the rods will not only make large holes, but will throw the Kinzhal off the stable near ballistic flight into an uncontrolled tumble, rapid deceleration and immediate structural breakup.

However, since it's in a vertical fall over the target anyway, pieces of the Kinzhal will fall down slowly under gravity, breaking cars, setting things on fire and generally creating a nuisance in the city environment. But it's far less dangerous that a half kiloton fully fused high explosive warhead that Kinzhal carries. Note there were no deaths reported after the fierce engagement in the skies.
Thanks for a clear and illuminating explanation of what is happening, and straight from the horses mouth.
 
I was not envisioning the Kinzhal's basically-ballistic course correctly. The intercept is obviously doable if the PACs are operational where they can cover the target. Can't imagine a satuaration attack with such expensive missiles. They need high-value not-defended-enough targets to justify their use. You can't carpet bomb a city with them....
 
…..it's far less dangerous that a half kiloton fully fused high explosive warhead that Kinzhal carries. Note there were no deaths reported after the fierce engagement in the skies.

half a kilo ton?, that’s one big conventional warhead, surprised they haven’t rocked to a vicinity near everyone with that technology! :).
 
half a kilo ton?, that’s one big conventional warhead, surprised they haven’t rocked to a vicinity near everyone with that technology! :).
500 kg is what I meant, half a ton... :⁠-⁠)

But Kinzhals are nuclear warhead capable.
 
Last edited:
Putin, Feb 2022:

The grievance :

“All of the so-called Western bloc, which the U.S. formed in its image and likeness, all of it in its entirety, is what’s known as the empire of lies,” Putin said. After the fall of the Soviet Union, he added, the U.S. and its allies “tried to crush us, beat us down and finish us off… We remember that and will never forget it.”

The flamboyant threat:

“To anyone who would consider interfering from outside: If you do, you will face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history. All the relevant decisions have been taken. I hope you hear me,”

May 2023:
15 months of war
30,000 Ukrainian civilians killed and injured
8 million Ukrainian refugees
200,000 Russian military casualties
 
what are the ukr military casualties
i really dont know - just asking.
That's an easy one - far, far too many, and there wouldn't have been any casualties, on either side, if this monstrous little man in the Kremlin, in possession of the largest proportion of real estate on the planet, hadn't decided, for his own twisted reasons, that he wanted even more.
 
what are the ukr military casualties
i really dont know - just asking.
I think nobody except Ukraine really knows and they are not saying. About Russia, I am not sure anyone at all knows for sure, considering the troubled relations of the mix of Russian forces, DNR forces and various PMCs fighting.

I found this Reuter's article from mid-April about what the US thinks: https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...sualties-likely-drag-us-documents-2023-04-12/
According to an assessment collated by the U.S. Defence Intelligence Agency, Russia has suffered 189,500-223,000 total casualties, including 35,500-43,000 killed in action and 154,000-180,000 wounded.

Ukraine has suffered 124,500-131,000 total casualties, including 15,500-17,500 killed in action and 109,000-113,500 wounded in action, according to the document entitled "Russia/Ukraine - Assessed Combat Sustainability and Attrition."

The figures are around 10 times bigger than any public casualty figures published by either Moscow or Kyiv.
Note that casualty normally means killed, wounded, taken prisoner, deserted or just missing in general. Anyone who becomes unavailable for service due to any unplanned reason is considered a casualty. It is possible for a soldier to become a casualty due to being wounded, rejoin the troops after recovering and then becoming a casualty again.
 


advertisement


Back
Top