11 ms·

Thick white smoke means a solid-fueled rocket. Solid-fueled combined with that kind of trajectory means either an MLRS or an AA missile. (neither artillery she

Thick white smoke means a solid-fueled rocket. Solid-fueled combined with that kind of trajectory means either an MLRS or an AA missile. (neither artillery shells nor cruise missiles use solid fuels) This cannot possibly be an MLRS rocket because they are fired in huge salvos and fall without smoke (all fuel is burnt by that point). You won't mistake that for anything else, believe me. AA launch gone haywire for some reason is my bet. The small explosion is also telling (AA missiles have small warheads, they are all fuel). This would mean either Buk, S-300, or Strela-10 as they are I think the only AA systems in the area. Since that happened yesterday (?) in the Obolon', Kiev, my second bet is that it belongs to Ukrainian Military since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted. Remember: what you're getting right now is almost pure white noise, from both sides. The full picture will be available much later. Don't trust my words either, verify everything yourself.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Does it matter where the source is? This would not have happened in an alternative universe where Putin is a good leader who was actually trying to improve the lives of Russians. This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well.
- FpUser 5y ago
  >"This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well." It is already disaster. Putin has basically threw Russia back to a stone age. I've no idea how long it'll take for him to go one or the other way and for Russia to recover back to anything resembling normal life.
- csee 5y ago
  It's going to be a disaster for Putin, too. A disaster for literally everyone involved.
  - ozfive 5y ago
    Let's hope so. He will reap what he sows.
- roamerz 5y ago
  Really like this comment. Root cause = aggressor actions.
- dkasper 5y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment that at the end of the day none of this would've happened without the Russian aggression, it does still matter because intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. I'm not saying that's what happened here but let's be clear that actions have serious meaning in war. This line of reasoning reminds me of the idea that we shouldn't care about the origin of covid because it's out there and the origin isn't going to make much difference at this point. But I think a lot of people do care about these details because they might have great historical significance.
  - LadyCailin 5y ago
    Who is going to enforce the war crime penalties?
    - nocturnial 5y ago
      The ICC [1]. Like everything it's not perfect. But this might be in their jurisdiction. I don't know. [1] https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-crimes-after-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-/6458687.html https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-c...
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        It is, because Ukraine, while not a state party to the Rome Statute, has acceded voluntarily to ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory. OTOH, ICC has no practical power to bring Russian personnel (other than those captured in combat by Ukraine) before it for trial, and the US “invade the Hague” law on the ICC might prove a model for Russia should the ICC gain custody of Russian personnel somehow.
  - slg 5y ago
    But the accusation is not that Russia did this intentionally. It is most likely an accident, an accident caused by Russia's invasion. Russia is responsible for the death of these civilians even if the missile came from Ukrainian equipment.
  - 5y ago
- Teever 5y ago
  The truth matters.
- holoduke 5y ago
  The Russians say: It would not have happened when Ukraine was not turned into a potential NATO country. The Russians genuinely see it as a security issue. Ukraine is becoming a threat once part of the NATO. In some ways understandable. In the end we are talking about two enemies ,the west and Russia having a pretty serious conflict. Neither is good or bad. Unfortunately propoganda is extremely efficient these days. Either side have full support.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Nah, it is pretty clear that Russia goal is control of Ukraine. The only role membership in NATO play is that if that theoretically happened, it would be harder to attack Ukraine later on. And there was no immenent threat of Ukraine entering nato anyway. This is just Russia using it as excuse.
    - holoduke 5y ago
      Of course they want to control Ukraine. They did for 100 years. Only recently they start losing market to western companies. That is the reason why there is a war now. Russia is losing ground. NATO is gaining ground. It is that simple. The ignorance to think that the west doesn't want Ukraine being member of NATO is beyond strange. Of course they want. It brings enormous market to NATO land. all large businesses would vote yes to get Ukraine inside their sphere. Same for Russia. For them it is exactly the same.
      - watwut 5y ago
        Yeah, they suppressed their attempt to have state in 1917 and when communist regime and it's USSR ended, Ukraine finally had its independence. Nothing obvious about Russia needing to annex surrounding countries again.
      - janto 5y ago
        It's up to Ukrainians to decide if they want to join NATO. Not businesses in another country.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  The man seems to love Stalin; it'd be better if he loved Khrushchev.
  - FpUser 5y ago
    Khrushchev was no match to Stalin. But he did not hesitate to fire on striking workers killing scores and later sentencing some to death and many to extended imprisonment. So I think as a human he was the same POS. Luckily for the people of USSR on a smaller scale.
tomatotomato37 5y ago
With the amount of equipment both sides are using that are the exact same (save for a swipe of IR paint) I can't imagine how much blue-on-blue incidents are happening right now
- gherkinnn 5y ago
  The 2014 conflict had one side tie yellow scraps of cloth around their arms to make them somewhat distinguishable.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    I'm seeing Ukrainians using yellow/green tapes while Russians are using white/red. Russians are also painting 'Z', 'V' and 'O' on their vehicles. Z being from Russia and V from Belarus.
    - takeda 5y ago
      I was wondering what the Z meant and after searching other people would too, and there were multiple theories. One of it was that Z stood for the main target - Zelenskyy. But that was just as likely as the other theories, but now that you said there are also V and O do it is for his full name: Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy then that's def it.
wyldfire 5y ago
SAMs would come from Ukranian defense in Kyiv and not Russian forces, right? Or could both sides have them there?
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  With the amount of chaos happening around I don't think anybody knows for sure. It's not taken yet, that's all I know from my brother who lives in the neighboring area (he has more important things to do than missile identification though...)
- 323 5y ago
  There are videos today with Russian Pantsir-S anti-defense in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497532522556624903 https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497532522556624903
- deutschewelle 5y ago
  The Russians have deployed SAMs in Belarus and has an operating radius that covers almost the entire theater. According to Rob Lee's twitter it appears Grand Parent's deduction is correct because previously a Ukranian Su-27 that blew up in Kiev was being falsely reported as Russian jet. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864 https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864 I have to note how difficult it is right now. "Ukranian side" (it is not clear who the original disseminator network is) appear to be using footages of ARMA 3 and DCS: World overlayed with voice and artifacts from Twitter's compression algorithms really can fool many to believe Ukraine is putting up fierce resistance. The latest disinformation seems to be a seemingly staged conversation between a Ukranian driver and a Russian APC squad. I don't know who stands to benefit from these disinformation campaign but : 1) Ukranian side can raise morale by selling perception that Russia is poorly equipped and suffering from poor morale. 2) Russian side would purposefully allow such disinformation to spread for an element of surprise, might even be the one manufacturing it. It is probably a combination of the two but from today's executive order from Putin to launch an all out offensive from all direction will be telling. Send in the poorly equipped, inexperienced troops in first to feign false sense of security and send in your regular well equipped army. White noise on all sides and I am noting too, just how difficult it is to get the real story but it seems Twitter makes this extra difficult and its not clear who is leaking these fake disinformation stories and to whom it is aimed to ultimately benefit. We simply do not know what is happening but I am leaning towards #2, today's encirclement and seige of Mariupol, which was long touted as putting up effective resistance by pro-Ukraine twitter accounts, seems to have collapsed in a matter of hours, sort of like the "Ghost of Kiev" myth
HuShifang 5y ago
I suppose Ukraine invaded itself, too?
stickfigure 5y ago
Why do you assume the missile is AA and not air-to-ground or ground-to-ground? (genuine question - are there not other kinds of missiles in use?)
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  It's been filmed from several angles, these videos were circulating in Telegram previously. No plane or helicopter was seen or heard around. Unguided air-to-ground missiles fired from helicopters don't usually have that kind of thick white smoke, and also fired in salvos. (I don't think a pilot even has an option to fire just one) Ground to ground is either MLRS (doesn't look like it at all) or ballistic (absolutely not)
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    Rockets get fired in salvos. Air to ground missiles are regularly fired individually. Think the US maveric or hellfire lines. "Missile" generally means a guided rocket. "Rockets" are generally unguided, although there are laser-guided FFARs that are still called rockets.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    Aren't there a variety of man- and vehicle-launched antitank missiles in use? Do they look substantially different?
    - orbital-decay 5y ago
      The missile in point descends in a straight line - that means either the launch happened in the air or it was boosted into the air upon the ground launch. AT missiles are typically obturated, don't have that amount of smoke either, and won't cause that kind of damage (they are designed to leave a small hole)
throwaway4good 5y ago
I think this refers to the same incident (from a pro-Russia twitter account): https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1497518912287789059 https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1497518912287789059 Russia MOD: “In attempts of repelling a rocket attack on the military infrastructure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, failure occurred in the missile guidance system of a Ukrainian AF Buk-M1 medium-range air defense system and the missile hit the corner of a residential building."
atlantas 5y ago
- jjulius 5y ago
  I don't disagree with the broader point you're supporting, but... >The 13 guards telling the Russian naval ship to fuck off (turns out they surrendered)... ... while I'm open to this being what actually happened, I can't find anything that suggests this. Even Reuters is still saying Zelensky says they died. Can you provide a source for this? Edit: TASS, a Russian news agency, appears to report what you're saying, but that's quite a biased source and seems to be the only one I can find[1]. [1]https://tass.com/politics/1410761 https://tass.com/politics/1410761
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - achikin 5y ago
    Russian media reports them being captured and transferred to Sevastopol https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/zmeinuy_ua/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/zmeinuy_ua...
    - armada651 5y ago
      Russian media has a huge interest in discrediting the story to break morale though. I wanted to check the link saying the Russian DoD has footage of the prisoners, but it just links to a tag list of all their articles about the Russian DoD. The site you've linked also has an article saying Biden is considering WW3 as a possible alternative to sanctions. https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/3rd/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/3rd/?_x_tr...
    - Swizec 5y ago
      To be fair Russian media also says invading Ukraine was justified to save the population from its government ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ according to Western media who again has an interest in portraying Russian media as bad
nkrisc 5y ago
Even if it was a Ukrainian missile launch gone wrong, Russia still bears responsibility since it was only launched because Russia invaded.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Yeah they kind of fucked that up, huh?
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    The "US attack" was a figment of their imagination. The Russian attack on Ukraine is not a figment of imagination.
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    The Russian invasion of Ukraine is very, very real.
AmericanOP 5y ago
Its alright to say you are speculating without drawing parallels to misinformation. They are not the same thing.
mdaniel 5y ago
I was curious what "MLRS" was, and it turns out there's a product page for it, only missing its "Add to Cart" button: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/m270.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/m270.html
- hluska 5y ago
  Holy cow, good find. Thanks for posting this - this is darned interesting.
- dylan604 5y ago
  No, this is one of those where the button says "Contact Us for a free quote". These things don't have a set price. They have a price of "How much can you afford?"
  - mdaniel 5y ago
    > They have a price of "How much can you afford?" That's actually a "normal" question when thinking of it in terms of one saas company to another, but I actually think that question is almost nonsensical when thinking of it as a company selling to a major government. "Err, what is this 'afford' word you use? I do not think it means what you think it does."
    - dylan604 5y ago
      let me rephrase then... "How much can we charge to ensure we are not leaving money on the table?" 'How much can you afford' has a deeper meaning. It's not how much money is in your wallet definition of "afford". It's more like how high can we push that number before your backside no longer clinches. It's a sales person's wet dream situation. It was never meant to be understood as "we can't afford your asking price, so give us a lower rate'. The overall missed point is that there is no set price. The prices are negotiated per purchaser.
- mgdlbp 5y ago
  Huh, didn't know it was trademarked!
master_crab 5y ago
That kind of damage would not be caused by an AA missile. Not only is it small (like you pointed out) AA missiles also tend to focus on fragmentation damage (expanding metal rings, directed frag etc). Source: I used to be an explosives expert in the military. Edit: Completely forgot to mention fuzing systems. This missile detonated on contact with the building. I have yet to come across an AA missile that detonates on contact with an object. All (effective) AA missiles use proximity sensors (radar, thermal, etc) to detonate near their target. Also, if it was a misfire, most modern missiles have fail safes that disable the detonation of the main charge in case of an accidental firing. Again, I could be wrong and this could be an AA missile, but all signs point to no; it isn’t.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Lots of "explosives experts" coming out on HN. Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd caution everyone during this time to take what they see online with a grain of salt. It's propaganda season.
  - master_crab 5y ago
    You’re free to chime in with your own thoughts. Just don’t bother with the ad hominem stuff.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - hunterb123 5y ago
      That was my own thought. It wasn't an attack at you, just a PSA to think about what you see online. Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning. -- I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument. Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.
osrec 5y ago
Out of genuine interest, how do you know so much about this stuff?
- orbital-decay 5y ago
  I used to work in aerospace, but not in defense so I don't actually know much, hence the warning in the end. (that's a problem with confident-looking comments on the net - people are always assuming you are competent when you're just a random guy speculating on the limited knowledge and information)
scarier 5y ago
That's a lot of damage against a reinforced concrete structure for an anti-air weapon. I think it's at least as likely to be an impact from an air-to-surface weapon, which would also have solid propellent. The flight profile looks much more consistent with a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft launch than a surface-to-air launch (especially since, as you mentioned, it's clearly in the early-ish stages of flight). A Buk launch could be vaguely plausible (the Strela series has VERY small warheads), but I don't see the S-300 having that kind of failure mode early in flight. As you said though, the full picture will come out later. Hopefully they'll find some identifiable weapon fragments eventually.
- sobriquet9 5y ago
  It clearly wasn't a MANPAD. 70 kg warhead of Buk M1 can do that much damage.
t8e56vd4ih 5y ago
> since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted. what do you mean with "taken"? who takes what?
- vmception 5y ago
  in this context it would be Russia takes Ukrainian military equipment to disarm resistance
sangnoir 5y ago
> my second bet is that it belongs to Ukrainian Military since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted. A widely circulated video showed a Ukrainian jet that was shot down in Kyiv at night by Russian AA less than 48 hours ago. The odds are not great on your second bet.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 5y ago
You may well be right about all of that. And then you will have to consider that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine this would not have happened regardless of which party fired the rocket. You can take it as read that Ukrainians would not willfully take out their own apartment buildings. So whatever the direct cause the responsibility for all this lies with the Russians.
- hunterb123 5y ago
  Not all of it. If there isn't some responsibility on proper operations of munitions then you're saying it's okay for them to keep blowing up apt buildings on accident because Ruskies are there. This should be remembered, those responsible in its operation should be reprimanded, and those civilians and their families should be compensated by the Ukrainian government. It should not be used as propaganda, it should be admitted as a mistake.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Munitions can and do fail, rockets can and do go off territory. Taking into account how the Russians handled MH17, as a Dutch person I may be a bit biased but I think this is wholly on them. Russia is responsible, no matter how you want to dress it up. RCA. Or do you actually believe that reparations payments take into account which party did the damage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
  - justin66 5y ago
    Anti-aircraft weapons are inherently dangerous to the cities they protect. Shells are fired upward and many follow a ballistic path back down to earth, missiles are fired and quite often miss. Successfully deployed weapons cause airplanes, and all their fuel and ordnance, to fall out of the sky onto the landscape below. All of this is understood by the militaries who rely on these weapons. These are just the basic facts. No special expertise needed, of the sort the "I can tell what kind of missile this was by observing the smoke it makes" guy must possess. Shifting moral responsibility for collateral damage from the aggressor to the defender based on the limitations of the defender's arsenal does not seem right.
tempestn 5y ago
I think something to keep in mind here too is that whether that was a Russian missile or not (I expect it was, but grant that it might have been friendly fire), it's a certainty it wouldn't have been fired if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine.
SergeAx 5y ago
S-300 warhead is 130-180 kg (different modifications)
venhogger 5y ago
Not sure if I can add some info that helps, but looking at the footage, I'm seeing trajectory coming from west, even south west, it's big, 5-6 m, travelling around 1200 m/s - so, mach 3-4 (based on 25fps), angle (in the actual image from cctv footage) starts at 39 degrees and dips further down to 43 degrees (in my crude analysis 90deg would be straight down), I guess that sounds like a Buk then, but I'd love anyones feedback. Will add tho, that even if this was a stray from Ukrane's forces, there are russian missles just sitting around in the streets, so they're not exactly being precise with their targeting, I'm just interested in knowing what is exactly the truth, don't care so much the implications in short term, as op said all noise for a long time, but figuring it out helps interpret what you see in the news. Edit: Oh, assuming we all know location - NE of Sikorsky Int Airport, next to novus supermarket.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Does it matter where the source is? This would not have happened in an alternative universe where Putin is a good leader who was actually trying to improve the lives of Russians. This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well.

FpUser 5y ago
>"This is going to be a disaster for the Russian people as well." It is already disaster. Putin has basically threw Russia back to a stone age. I've no idea how long it'll take for him to go one or the other way and for Russia to recover back to anything resembling normal life.
csee 5y ago
It's going to be a disaster for Putin, too. A disaster for literally everyone involved.
- ozfive 5y ago
  Let's hope so. He will reap what he sows.
roamerz 5y ago
Really like this comment. Root cause = aggressor actions.
dkasper 5y ago
While I agree with the sentiment that at the end of the day none of this would've happened without the Russian aggression, it does still matter because intentionally targeting civilians is a war crime. I'm not saying that's what happened here but let's be clear that actions have serious meaning in war. This line of reasoning reminds me of the idea that we shouldn't care about the origin of covid because it's out there and the origin isn't going to make much difference at this point. But I think a lot of people do care about these details because they might have great historical significance.
- LadyCailin 5y ago
  Who is going to enforce the war crime penalties?
  - nocturnial 5y ago
    The ICC [1]. Like everything it's not perfect. But this might be in their jurisdiction. I don't know. [1] https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-crimes-after-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-/6458687.html https://www.voanews.com/a/icc-may-investigate-possible-war-c...
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      It is, because Ukraine, while not a state party to the Rome Statute, has acceded voluntarily to ICC jurisdiction for war crimes on its territory. OTOH, ICC has no practical power to bring Russian personnel (other than those captured in combat by Ukraine) before it for trial, and the US “invade the Hague” law on the ICC might prove a model for Russia should the ICC gain custody of Russian personnel somehow.
- slg 5y ago
  But the accusation is not that Russia did this intentionally. It is most likely an accident, an accident caused by Russia's invasion. Russia is responsible for the death of these civilians even if the missile came from Ukrainian equipment.
- 5y ago
Teever 5y ago
The truth matters.
holoduke 5y ago
The Russians say: It would not have happened when Ukraine was not turned into a potential NATO country. The Russians genuinely see it as a security issue. Ukraine is becoming a threat once part of the NATO. In some ways understandable. In the end we are talking about two enemies ,the west and Russia having a pretty serious conflict. Neither is good or bad. Unfortunately propoganda is extremely efficient these days. Either side have full support.
- watwut 5y ago
  Nah, it is pretty clear that Russia goal is control of Ukraine. The only role membership in NATO play is that if that theoretically happened, it would be harder to attack Ukraine later on. And there was no immenent threat of Ukraine entering nato anyway. This is just Russia using it as excuse.
  - holoduke 5y ago
    Of course they want to control Ukraine. They did for 100 years. Only recently they start losing market to western companies. That is the reason why there is a war now. Russia is losing ground. NATO is gaining ground. It is that simple. The ignorance to think that the west doesn't want Ukraine being member of NATO is beyond strange. Of course they want. It brings enormous market to NATO land. all large businesses would vote yes to get Ukraine inside their sphere. Same for Russia. For them it is exactly the same.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Yeah, they suppressed their attempt to have state in 1917 and when communist regime and it's USSR ended, Ukraine finally had its independence. Nothing obvious about Russia needing to annex surrounding countries again.
    - janto 5y ago
      It's up to Ukrainians to decide if they want to join NATO. Not businesses in another country.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
The man seems to love Stalin; it'd be better if he loved Khrushchev.
- FpUser 5y ago
  Khrushchev was no match to Stalin. But he did not hesitate to fire on striking workers killing scores and later sentencing some to death and many to extended imprisonment. So I think as a human he was the same POS. Luckily for the people of USSR on a smaller scale.

tomatotomato37 5y ago

With the amount of equipment both sides are using that are the exact same (save for a swipe of IR paint) I can't imagine how much blue-on-blue incidents are happening right now

gherkinnn 5y ago
The 2014 conflict had one side tie yellow scraps of cloth around their arms to make them somewhat distinguishable.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  I'm seeing Ukrainians using yellow/green tapes while Russians are using white/red. Russians are also painting 'Z', 'V' and 'O' on their vehicles. Z being from Russia and V from Belarus.
  - takeda 5y ago
    I was wondering what the Z meant and after searching other people would too, and there were multiple theories. One of it was that Z stood for the main target - Zelenskyy. But that was just as likely as the other theories, but now that you said there are also V and O do it is for his full name: Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy then that's def it.

wyldfire 5y ago

SAMs would come from Ukranian defense in Kyiv and not Russian forces, right? Or could both sides have them there?

orbital-decay 5y ago
With the amount of chaos happening around I don't think anybody knows for sure. It's not taken yet, that's all I know from my brother who lives in the neighboring area (he has more important things to do than missile identification though...)
323 5y ago
There are videos today with Russian Pantsir-S anti-defense in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497532522556624903 https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497532522556624903
deutschewelle 5y ago
The Russians have deployed SAMs in Belarus and has an operating radius that covers almost the entire theater. According to Rob Lee's twitter it appears Grand Parent's deduction is correct because previously a Ukranian Su-27 that blew up in Kiev was being falsely reported as Russian jet. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864 https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1497083662814244864 I have to note how difficult it is right now. "Ukranian side" (it is not clear who the original disseminator network is) appear to be using footages of ARMA 3 and DCS: World overlayed with voice and artifacts from Twitter's compression algorithms really can fool many to believe Ukraine is putting up fierce resistance. The latest disinformation seems to be a seemingly staged conversation between a Ukranian driver and a Russian APC squad. I don't know who stands to benefit from these disinformation campaign but : 1) Ukranian side can raise morale by selling perception that Russia is poorly equipped and suffering from poor morale. 2) Russian side would purposefully allow such disinformation to spread for an element of surprise, might even be the one manufacturing it. It is probably a combination of the two but from today's executive order from Putin to launch an all out offensive from all direction will be telling. Send in the poorly equipped, inexperienced troops in first to feign false sense of security and send in your regular well equipped army. White noise on all sides and I am noting too, just how difficult it is to get the real story but it seems Twitter makes this extra difficult and its not clear who is leaking these fake disinformation stories and to whom it is aimed to ultimately benefit. We simply do not know what is happening but I am leaning towards #2, today's encirclement and seige of Mariupol, which was long touted as putting up effective resistance by pro-Ukraine twitter accounts, seems to have collapsed in a matter of hours, sort of like the "Ghost of Kiev" myth

HuShifang 5y ago

I suppose Ukraine invaded itself, too?

stickfigure 5y ago

Why do you assume the missile is AA and not air-to-ground or ground-to-ground? (genuine question - are there not other kinds of missiles in use?)

orbital-decay 5y ago
It's been filmed from several angles, these videos were circulating in Telegram previously. No plane or helicopter was seen or heard around. Unguided air-to-ground missiles fired from helicopters don't usually have that kind of thick white smoke, and also fired in salvos. (I don't think a pilot even has an option to fire just one) Ground to ground is either MLRS (doesn't look like it at all) or ballistic (absolutely not)
- sandworm101 5y ago
  Rockets get fired in salvos. Air to ground missiles are regularly fired individually. Think the US maveric or hellfire lines. "Missile" generally means a guided rocket. "Rockets" are generally unguided, although there are laser-guided FFARs that are still called rockets.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  Aren't there a variety of man- and vehicle-launched antitank missiles in use? Do they look substantially different?
  - orbital-decay 5y ago
    The missile in point descends in a straight line - that means either the launch happened in the air or it was boosted into the air upon the ground launch. AT missiles are typically obturated, don't have that amount of smoke either, and won't cause that kind of damage (they are designed to leave a small hole)

throwaway4good 5y ago

I think this refers to the same incident (from a pro-Russia twitter account): https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1497518912287789059 https://twitter.com/ASBMilitary/status/1497518912287789059 Russia MOD: “In attempts of repelling a rocket attack on the military infrastructure of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, failure occurred in the missile guidance system of a Ukrainian AF Buk-M1 medium-range air defense system and the missile hit the corner of a residential building."

atlantas 5y ago

jjulius 5y ago
I don't disagree with the broader point you're supporting, but... >The 13 guards telling the Russian naval ship to fuck off (turns out they surrendered)... ... while I'm open to this being what actually happened, I can't find anything that suggests this. Even Reuters is still saying Zelensky says they died. Can you provide a source for this? Edit: TASS, a Russian news agency, appears to report what you're saying, but that's quite a biased source and seems to be the only one I can find[1]. [1]https://tass.com/politics/1410761 https://tass.com/politics/1410761
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- achikin 5y ago
  Russian media reports them being captured and transferred to Sevastopol https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/zmeinuy_ua/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/zmeinuy_ua...
  - armada651 5y ago
    Russian media has a huge interest in discrediting the story to break morale though. I wanted to check the link saying the Russian DoD has footage of the prisoners, but it just links to a tag list of all their articles about the Russian DoD. The site you've linked also has an article saying Biden is considering WW3 as a possible alternative to sanctions. https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/3rd/?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp https://m-lenta-ru.translate.goog/news/2022/02/26/3rd/?_x_tr...
  - Swizec 5y ago
    To be fair Russian media also says invading Ukraine was justified to save the population from its government ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ according to Western media who again has an interest in portraying Russian media as bad

nkrisc 5y ago

Even if it was a Ukrainian missile launch gone wrong, Russia still bears responsibility since it was only launched because Russia invaded.

throwaway4good 5y ago
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  Yeah they kind of fucked that up, huh?
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  The "US attack" was a figment of their imagination. The Russian attack on Ukraine is not a figment of imagination.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  The Russian invasion of Ukraine is very, very real.

AmericanOP 5y ago

Its alright to say you are speculating without drawing parallels to misinformation. They are not the same thing.

mdaniel 5y ago

I was curious what "MLRS" was, and it turns out there's a product page for it, only missing its "Add to Cart" button: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/m270.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/m270.html

hluska 5y ago
Holy cow, good find. Thanks for posting this - this is darned interesting.
dylan604 5y ago
No, this is one of those where the button says "Contact Us for a free quote". These things don't have a set price. They have a price of "How much can you afford?"
- mdaniel 5y ago
  > They have a price of "How much can you afford?" That's actually a "normal" question when thinking of it in terms of one saas company to another, but I actually think that question is almost nonsensical when thinking of it as a company selling to a major government. "Err, what is this 'afford' word you use? I do not think it means what you think it does."
  - dylan604 5y ago
    let me rephrase then... "How much can we charge to ensure we are not leaving money on the table?" 'How much can you afford' has a deeper meaning. It's not how much money is in your wallet definition of "afford". It's more like how high can we push that number before your backside no longer clinches. It's a sales person's wet dream situation. It was never meant to be understood as "we can't afford your asking price, so give us a lower rate'. The overall missed point is that there is no set price. The prices are negotiated per purchaser.
mgdlbp 5y ago
Huh, didn't know it was trademarked!

master_crab 5y ago

That kind of damage would not be caused by an AA missile. Not only is it small (like you pointed out) AA missiles also tend to focus on fragmentation damage (expanding metal rings, directed frag etc). Source: I used to be an explosives expert in the military. Edit: Completely forgot to mention fuzing systems. This missile detonated on contact with the building. I have yet to come across an AA missile that detonates on contact with an object. All (effective) AA missiles use proximity sensors (radar, thermal, etc) to detonate near their target. Also, if it was a misfire, most modern missiles have fail safes that disable the detonation of the main charge in case of an accidental firing. Again, I could be wrong and this could be an AA missile, but all signs point to no; it isn’t.

hunterb123 5y ago
Lots of "explosives experts" coming out on HN. Not saying I don't believe you, but I'd caution everyone during this time to take what they see online with a grain of salt. It's propaganda season.
- master_crab 5y ago
  You’re free to chime in with your own thoughts. Just don’t bother with the ad hominem stuff.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hunterb123 5y ago
    That was my own thought. It wasn't an attack at you, just a PSA to think about what you see online. Personally, the red flags from your post were that you have hardly any post history, you came out claimed to be a munitions/explosives expert, usually you don't have to do that, the knowledge speaks for itself. Your rebuttal didn't seem to be as strong compared to GPs reasoning, and it ended with a conclusion that seemed to be more of an opinion, not objective reasoning. -- I don't think the ad hominem attack by (epgui) and (jaquesm) is warranted, it definitely isn't "Fact". I reply to many topics both political and technical, as does everyone. If I have such a consistent track record of "patently unreasonable comments" then you should be able to support your argument. Again, I did not mean any offense by my initial statement.

osrec 5y ago

Out of genuine interest, how do you know so much about this stuff?

orbital-decay 5y ago
I used to work in aerospace, but not in defense so I don't actually know much, hence the warning in the end. (that's a problem with confident-looking comments on the net - people are always assuming you are competent when you're just a random guy speculating on the limited knowledge and information)

scarier 5y ago

That's a lot of damage against a reinforced concrete structure for an anti-air weapon. I think it's at least as likely to be an impact from an air-to-surface weapon, which would also have solid propellent. The flight profile looks much more consistent with a helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft launch than a surface-to-air launch (especially since, as you mentioned, it's clearly in the early-ish stages of flight). A Buk launch could be vaguely plausible (the Strela series has VERY small warheads), but I don't see the S-300 having that kind of failure mode early in flight. As you said though, the full picture will come out later. Hopefully they'll find some identifiable weapon fragments eventually.

sobriquet9 5y ago
It clearly wasn't a MANPAD. 70 kg warhead of Buk M1 can do that much damage.

t8e56vd4ih 5y ago

> since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted. what do you mean with "taken"? who takes what?

vmception 5y ago
in this context it would be Russia takes Ukrainian military equipment to disarm resistance

sangnoir 5y ago

> my second bet is that it belongs to Ukrainian Military since it's not taken yet, or wasn't at the moment this was posted. A widely circulated video showed a Ukrainian jet that was shot down in Kyiv at night by Russian AA less than 48 hours ago. The odds are not great on your second bet.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 5y ago

You may well be right about all of that. And then you will have to consider that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine this would not have happened regardless of which party fired the rocket. You can take it as read that Ukrainians would not willfully take out their own apartment buildings. So whatever the direct cause the responsibility for all this lies with the Russians.

hunterb123 5y ago
Not all of it. If there isn't some responsibility on proper operations of munitions then you're saying it's okay for them to keep blowing up apt buildings on accident because Ruskies are there. This should be remembered, those responsible in its operation should be reprimanded, and those civilians and their families should be compensated by the Ukrainian government. It should not be used as propaganda, it should be admitted as a mistake.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Munitions can and do fail, rockets can and do go off territory. Taking into account how the Russians handled MH17, as a Dutch person I may be a bit biased but I think this is wholly on them. Russia is responsible, no matter how you want to dress it up. RCA. Or do you actually believe that reparations payments take into account which party did the damage? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
- justin66 5y ago
  Anti-aircraft weapons are inherently dangerous to the cities they protect. Shells are fired upward and many follow a ballistic path back down to earth, missiles are fired and quite often miss. Successfully deployed weapons cause airplanes, and all their fuel and ordnance, to fall out of the sky onto the landscape below. All of this is understood by the militaries who rely on these weapons. These are just the basic facts. No special expertise needed, of the sort the "I can tell what kind of missile this was by observing the smoke it makes" guy must possess. Shifting moral responsibility for collateral damage from the aggressor to the defender based on the limitations of the defender's arsenal does not seem right.

tempestn 5y ago

I think something to keep in mind here too is that whether that was a Russian missile or not (I expect it was, but grant that it might have been friendly fire), it's a certainty it wouldn't have been fired if Russia hadn't invaded Ukraine.

SergeAx 5y ago

S-300 warhead is 130-180 kg (different modifications)

venhogger 5y ago

Not sure if I can add some info that helps, but looking at the footage, I'm seeing trajectory coming from west, even south west, it's big, 5-6 m, travelling around 1200 m/s - so, mach 3-4 (based on 25fps), angle (in the actual image from cctv footage) starts at 39 degrees and dips further down to 43 degrees (in my crude analysis 90deg would be straight down), I guess that sounds like a Buk then, but I'd love anyones feedback. Will add tho, that even if this was a stray from Ukrane's forces, there are russian missles just sitting around in the streets, so they're not exactly being precise with their targeting, I'm just interested in knowing what is exactly the truth, don't care so much the implications in short term, as op said all noise for a long time, but figuring it out helps interpret what you see in the news. Edit: Oh, assuming we all know location - NE of Sikorsky Int Airport, next to novus supermarket.