5 ms·

Meanwhile Russia is successfully fielding hypersonic weapons in it's invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, US air defense tech is severely lacking compared to Russ

Meanwhile Russia is successfully fielding hypersonic weapons in it's invasion of Ukraine. Additionally, US air defense tech is severely lacking compared to Russia's multilayered systems. Yet US spends much much more. Where is the money going?

Nick87633 4y ago
This reads a lot like propaganda unless you bring in some sources and numbers
- dsr_ 4y ago
  Also, hypersonic weapons are not new. The new part of this is "air-breathing", i.e. not carrying an oxidizer.
dragontamer 4y ago
How many HIMARS rockets are the Russian defense system shooting down? Given all the ammo dumps on fire this past week, it is clear that the Russian air defense system fails at subsonic rockets, let alone supersonic or hypersonic. We'll seriously discuss air defense the moment Russia can deal with cheap rockets / Missiles (HIMARS or Neptune). But Moskova sank and now S300 /S400 systems are getting wrecked. The Russian systems have proven to be a complete joke to a degree no one expected. Against the Russian adversary, it has become clear that hypersonics are not needed. Neptune (subsonic sea skimming cruise missiles) and HIMARS (ballistic semi-guided subsonic rockets) are all that's actually required.
- vasac 4y ago
  That doesn't work the way you think it works. Even Israel, with limited territory that it wants to protect isn't successful in 100% of times. Currently air defense of all military powerful countries is able to defend against limited attack of ballistic missiles, not against every single rocket that MRLS spews in a span of 20 seconds. btw Iran rocked US bases in Iraq just fine with not terribly modern rockets.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > btw Iran rocked US bases in Iraq just fine with not terribly modern rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani 12 missiles, zero deaths, some concussions, advance warning to the Iraqis, and targeting a lightly-defended base; "due to the lack of a missile defense system at the bases, no missiles were intercepted". Wouldn't read too much into it. It was a tit-for-tat response to the US droning an Iranian commander.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > That doesn't work the way you think it works. Vice versa. I know this. Which is why I'm arguing in favor of missile swarms, rather than hypersonic missiles. A missile swarm will accomplish the same thing as hypersonic, in that it will overwhelm the enemy's air defenses and allow you to prioritize specific targets with high chance of success. HIMARS rockets, launched 6 at a time (or at least, 6 in a minute), seem impossible for the Russian army to stop. They may have some systems shooting down some of these missiles, but the Ukrainians are clearly hitting a lot of important targets with just 4 HIMARS systems. Just saturating with 6+-HIMARS coordinating and massing fire would probably be cheaper than deploying hypersonic missiles (!!!). Don't get me wrong, HIMARS are expensive... but hypersonics are __REALLY__ expensive. Future "Swarms" of missiles can enable missile-to-missile communications (who is still alive? Anyone sensing enemy RADAR signatures that we need to dodge? Etc. etc.) to improve overall missile performance.
- jollybean 4y ago
  S300/400 works just fine against aircraft and probably cruise missiles. HIMARS rockets are small, fast ... S300 was supposed to stop them, but we can't be sure how many are getting hit even then I don't think we can accept to get a volley of 6 rockets interceded. That said, of course Russia's used of supposed 'hypersonics' is a pointless distraction. There isn't an obvious gap anywhere here, other than it seems PAC/Patriot systems are so expensive there are few deployed, which is a bit scary. Also, no matter how good your AA, where there is a ton of missiles and jets, some things get through.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    > I don't think we can accept to get a volley of 6 rockets interceded. If you can't stop 6x $150,000 missiles, why would I ever shoot you with a $20,000,000 hypersonic missile? > Also, no matter how good your AA, where there is a ton of missiles and jets, some things get through. I think swarming missiles is a better idea to overwhelm missile defense systems, rather than Hypersonics.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      What? Swarming missiles? Where do people get these stupid ideas? You don't get a swarm just because you deploy multiple missiles at the same time. What you are describing is a saturation attack.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        > What? Swarming missiles? Where do people get these stupid ideas? https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/04/air-forces-golden-horde-swarming-munitions-program-to-get-a-second-chance-this-month/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/04/air-forces-golden... > You don't get a swarm just because you deploy multiple missiles at the same time. A missile swarm knows that Missile #5, and #10 were shot down, and that missile #5's target was more important than Missile #1's target. A "saturation attack" won't have this effect. Simple intelligence, not even "AI level", but some basic communications between missiles, can lead to better mission success. A "saturation attack" means hitting an area with maybe 30 missiles and hoping all the targets get blown up. A missile swarm on the other hand, has those 30 missiles communicate, prioritizes, and focuses upon target locations as they get intercepted, all automatically. If 25 missiles get shot down, the remaining 5 missiles still hit the top 5 most important targets. If 15 missiles get shot down, the 15 missiles spread out and hit lower priority targets (rather than redundantly making the craters bigger). ------- A "Swarm" is just an incremental upgrade to the already well performing "saturation attack" strategy. But we have enough communication systems that coordination and prioritization should be in our next-generation missile systems. This isn't a revolution, its just a natural evolution to the age-old saturation strategy. Put simple dumb computers to make the strategy even better in the future.
- cpursley 4y ago
  Those ammo depots are not that far into Russian occupied territory. Do we even know if they have many S-X00s set up there, already? Also, Russian DoD or whatever they're called has reported intercepting some of those HIMARS. Also, at the start of this, Ukraine had around 100 S-300s - which is one of the reason Russia has had a difficult time. Those are effective systems. And there's a reason the US made a big deal about Turkey purchasing S-400s.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Do we even know if they have many S-X00s set up there, already? Their targeting is such shit they can’t avoid shooting down their own materiel. Russia’s menace is more akin to the Taliban than the USSR or China. A pest due to proximity.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      Source?
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Friendly fire is a thing even for US troops; 24% of US combat casualties in the first Gulf War were blue-on-blue. It's definitely happening in Ukraine. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1642804/Russia-weapons-Ukraine-Su-34-bomber-army-military-artillery-war-Putin-NATO-defence-vn https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1642804/Russia-weapons-... There have been signs Russia's struggling to organize air operations. https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations/ https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defe...
        cpursley 4y ago
        ^ That's an old rusi post. Russia was not running a lot of air operations (other than choppers) in the beginning because Ukraine had 100 or so S-300 systems. Airplanes and pilots are expensive. But they've absolutely been ramping up air operations in the past several months. But in general, why send in a jet when a standoff missile will do the same job with less risk? This by Andrei Martyanov (who's a US citizen fwiw) is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS7kaHzRNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS7kaHzRNw
EB-Barrington 4y ago
Russia is either specifically targeting civilian infrastructure, or their weapons are not as good as you're implying. Which one is it? Hello from Kyiv.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> Meanwhile Russia is successfully fielding hypersonic weapons in it's invasion of Ukraine. If Russia needs to use hypersonic weapons against Ukraine, that's frankly a bit embarassing. They're either having a harder time than they should be against Ukranian air defenses, or they're low on conventional missiles. > Additionally, US air defense tech is severely lacking compared to Russia's multilayered systems. The continued existence of the Ukranian Air Force (including drones taking out SAM sites) and the sinking of the Moskva seem to indicate the Russian air defense advantage may have been overstated.
- cpursley 4y ago
  Doesn't seem too embarrassing, they've hit several locations with high concentrations of foreign mercenaries and weapon stores with them. Mercenaries who survived reported that the incoming missile detection systems didn't go off at all. Additionally, an active war is the perfect time to test out new weapons systems. Plus there's no signs that Russia is running out of conventional missiles or other munitions: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... And remember, Ukrainian air defense is mostly made up of upgraded Soviet (Russian) systems which just prove that the S-x00 and others are work well. And regarding the Moskva - it was a sitting duck, and an old duck with very outdated systems.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    That's an odd article. "The stockpile is unknown, they've already burned through half their likely inventory thus far, produce only a few dozen a year, and are using balistic missiles on weird targets" seems to point to the opposite conclusion they're going for.
    - cpursley 4y ago
      Another source: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-russia-is-not-running-out-of-ammo.html https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-russia-is-not-r...
detritus 4y ago
The er.. much-vaunted S300 and S400 systems very recently proved ineffective against American HIMARS systems and the so-called 'hypersonic weapon' they used in Ukraine (never mind 'why?') was basically a sub-ICBM missile that didn't operate within a hypersonic envelope. Such 'hypersonic' weapons have been in a lot of countries arsenals for decades now, they just called them ICBMs or whatever. The type of Hypersonic weapon mentioned in this thread is one that breaths air (either scram or ram jet, I forget)and so is an entirely different beast, one which Russia has no known capability of. You seem to have a flawed interpretation of the events in Ukraine - if anything, this war seems to highlight just how utterly advanced NATO's weaponry is against an increasingly evident paper tiger. If Russia didn't have the nuclear card to play, the situation on the ground (and air, water) would be VERY different. I doubt Russia would exist in its current state by this stage, its military having been utterly routed. Sadly for Ukraine, they hold that card and threaten it often, like all decent states do... .
- cpursley 4y ago
  The Russian Paper Tiger was supposed to run out of munitions three months ago, yet - here they are day after day conducting massive artillery and missile attacks, intercepting much of what is thrown at them and consistently taking over territory. And that's with the Junior team (small invading force vs defending force); much of the ground fighters are actually from the Ukrainian Donbas. - https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... - https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-russian-edge-in-electronic-warfare/ https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-r... - https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Two of those articles are pre-war; bit weird to cite given the difference in Russian performance between the theoretical and the in-practice thus far. Russia having lots of artillery tubes and shells has never been in doubt; it's other logistical aspects they seem to have struggled with. The gains in the Donbas are small, incremental, and balanced fairly well by losses near Kherson and Kharkiv. For the main axis of an invasion by one of the world's largest militaries, it's not much to brag about thus far.

Nick87633 4y ago

This reads a lot like propaganda unless you bring in some sources and numbers

dsr_ 4y ago
Also, hypersonic weapons are not new. The new part of this is "air-breathing", i.e. not carrying an oxidizer.

dragontamer 4y ago

How many HIMARS rockets are the Russian defense system shooting down? Given all the ammo dumps on fire this past week, it is clear that the Russian air defense system fails at subsonic rockets, let alone supersonic or hypersonic. We'll seriously discuss air defense the moment Russia can deal with cheap rockets / Missiles (HIMARS or Neptune). But Moskova sank and now S300 /S400 systems are getting wrecked. The Russian systems have proven to be a complete joke to a degree no one expected. Against the Russian adversary, it has become clear that hypersonics are not needed. Neptune (subsonic sea skimming cruise missiles) and HIMARS (ballistic semi-guided subsonic rockets) are all that's actually required.

vasac 4y ago
That doesn't work the way you think it works. Even Israel, with limited territory that it wants to protect isn't successful in 100% of times. Currently air defense of all military powerful countries is able to defend against limited attack of ballistic missiles, not against every single rocket that MRLS spews in a span of 20 seconds. btw Iran rocked US bases in Iraq just fine with not terribly modern rockets.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > btw Iran rocked US bases in Iraq just fine with not terribly modern rockets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Martyr_Soleimani 12 missiles, zero deaths, some concussions, advance warning to the Iraqis, and targeting a lightly-defended base; "due to the lack of a missile defense system at the bases, no missiles were intercepted". Wouldn't read too much into it. It was a tit-for-tat response to the US droning an Iranian commander.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > That doesn't work the way you think it works. Vice versa. I know this. Which is why I'm arguing in favor of missile swarms, rather than hypersonic missiles. A missile swarm will accomplish the same thing as hypersonic, in that it will overwhelm the enemy's air defenses and allow you to prioritize specific targets with high chance of success. HIMARS rockets, launched 6 at a time (or at least, 6 in a minute), seem impossible for the Russian army to stop. They may have some systems shooting down some of these missiles, but the Ukrainians are clearly hitting a lot of important targets with just 4 HIMARS systems. Just saturating with 6+-HIMARS coordinating and massing fire would probably be cheaper than deploying hypersonic missiles (!!!). Don't get me wrong, HIMARS are expensive... but hypersonics are __REALLY__ expensive. Future "Swarms" of missiles can enable missile-to-missile communications (who is still alive? Anyone sensing enemy RADAR signatures that we need to dodge? Etc. etc.) to improve overall missile performance.
jollybean 4y ago
S300/400 works just fine against aircraft and probably cruise missiles. HIMARS rockets are small, fast ... S300 was supposed to stop them, but we can't be sure how many are getting hit even then I don't think we can accept to get a volley of 6 rockets interceded. That said, of course Russia's used of supposed 'hypersonics' is a pointless distraction. There isn't an obvious gap anywhere here, other than it seems PAC/Patriot systems are so expensive there are few deployed, which is a bit scary. Also, no matter how good your AA, where there is a ton of missiles and jets, some things get through.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  > I don't think we can accept to get a volley of 6 rockets interceded. If you can't stop 6x $150,000 missiles, why would I ever shoot you with a $20,000,000 hypersonic missile? > Also, no matter how good your AA, where there is a ton of missiles and jets, some things get through. I think swarming missiles is a better idea to overwhelm missile defense systems, rather than Hypersonics.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    What? Swarming missiles? Where do people get these stupid ideas? You don't get a swarm just because you deploy multiple missiles at the same time. What you are describing is a saturation attack.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      > What? Swarming missiles? Where do people get these stupid ideas? https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/04/air-forces-golden-horde-swarming-munitions-program-to-get-a-second-chance-this-month/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/02/04/air-forces-golden... > You don't get a swarm just because you deploy multiple missiles at the same time. A missile swarm knows that Missile #5, and #10 were shot down, and that missile #5's target was more important than Missile #1's target. A "saturation attack" won't have this effect. Simple intelligence, not even "AI level", but some basic communications between missiles, can lead to better mission success. A "saturation attack" means hitting an area with maybe 30 missiles and hoping all the targets get blown up. A missile swarm on the other hand, has those 30 missiles communicate, prioritizes, and focuses upon target locations as they get intercepted, all automatically. If 25 missiles get shot down, the remaining 5 missiles still hit the top 5 most important targets. If 15 missiles get shot down, the 15 missiles spread out and hit lower priority targets (rather than redundantly making the craters bigger). ------- A "Swarm" is just an incremental upgrade to the already well performing "saturation attack" strategy. But we have enough communication systems that coordination and prioritization should be in our next-generation missile systems. This isn't a revolution, its just a natural evolution to the age-old saturation strategy. Put simple dumb computers to make the strategy even better in the future.
cpursley 4y ago
Those ammo depots are not that far into Russian occupied territory. Do we even know if they have many S-X00s set up there, already? Also, Russian DoD or whatever they're called has reported intercepting some of those HIMARS. Also, at the start of this, Ukraine had around 100 S-300s - which is one of the reason Russia has had a difficult time. Those are effective systems. And there's a reason the US made a big deal about Turkey purchasing S-400s.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Do we even know if they have many S-X00s set up there, already? Their targeting is such shit they can’t avoid shooting down their own materiel. Russia’s menace is more akin to the Taliban than the USSR or China. A pest due to proximity.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    Source?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Friendly fire is a thing even for US troops; 24% of US combat casualties in the first Gulf War were blue-on-blue. It's definitely happening in Ukraine. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1642804/Russia-weapons-Ukraine-Su-34-bomber-army-military-artillery-war-Putin-NATO-defence-vn https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1642804/Russia-weapons-... There have been signs Russia's struggling to organize air operations. https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/russian-air-force-actually-incapable-complex-air-operations/ https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defe...
      - cpursley 4y ago
        ^ That's an old rusi post. Russia was not running a lot of air operations (other than choppers) in the beginning because Ukraine had 100 or so S-300 systems. Airplanes and pilots are expensive. But they've absolutely been ramping up air operations in the past several months. But in general, why send in a jet when a standoff missile will do the same job with less risk? This by Andrei Martyanov (who's a US citizen fwiw) is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS7kaHzRNw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS7kaHzRNw

EB-Barrington 4y ago

Russia is either specifically targeting civilian infrastructure, or their weapons are not as good as you're implying. Which one is it? Hello from Kyiv.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Meanwhile Russia is successfully fielding hypersonic weapons in it's invasion of Ukraine. If Russia needs to use hypersonic weapons against Ukraine, that's frankly a bit embarassing. They're either having a harder time than they should be against Ukranian air defenses, or they're low on conventional missiles. > Additionally, US air defense tech is severely lacking compared to Russia's multilayered systems. The continued existence of the Ukranian Air Force (including drones taking out SAM sites) and the sinking of the Moskva seem to indicate the Russian air defense advantage may have been overstated.

cpursley 4y ago
Doesn't seem too embarrassing, they've hit several locations with high concentrations of foreign mercenaries and weapon stores with them. Mercenaries who survived reported that the incoming missile detection systems didn't go off at all. Additionally, an active war is the perfect time to test out new weapons systems. Plus there's no signs that Russia is running out of conventional missiles or other munitions: https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... And remember, Ukrainian air defense is mostly made up of upgraded Soviet (Russian) systems which just prove that the S-x00 and others are work well. And regarding the Moskva - it was a sitting duck, and an old duck with very outdated systems.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  That's an odd article. "The stockpile is unknown, they've already burned through half their likely inventory thus far, produce only a few dozen a year, and are using balistic missiles on weird targets" seems to point to the opposite conclusion they're going for.
  - cpursley 4y ago
    Another source: https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-russia-is-not-running-out-of-ammo.html https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/07/why-russia-is-not-r...

detritus 4y ago

The er.. much-vaunted S300 and S400 systems very recently proved ineffective against American HIMARS systems and the so-called 'hypersonic weapon' they used in Ukraine (never mind 'why?') was basically a sub-ICBM missile that didn't operate within a hypersonic envelope. Such 'hypersonic' weapons have been in a lot of countries arsenals for decades now, they just called them ICBMs or whatever. The type of Hypersonic weapon mentioned in this thread is one that breaths air (either scram or ram jet, I forget)and so is an entirely different beast, one which Russia has no known capability of. You seem to have a flawed interpretation of the events in Ukraine - if anything, this war seems to highlight just how utterly advanced NATO's weaponry is against an increasingly evident paper tiger. If Russia didn't have the nuclear card to play, the situation on the ground (and air, water) would be VERY different. I doubt Russia would exist in its current state by this stage, its military having been utterly routed. Sadly for Ukraine, they hold that card and threaten it often, like all decent states do... .

cpursley 4y ago
The Russian Paper Tiger was supposed to run out of munitions three months ago, yet - here they are day after day conducting massive artillery and missile attacks, intercepting much of what is thrown at them and consistently taking over territory. And that's with the Junior team (small invading force vs defending force); much of the ground fighters are actually from the Ukrainian Donbas. - https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentar... - https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-russian-edge-in-electronic-warfare/ https://georgetownsecuritystudiesreview.org/2019/06/26/the-r... - https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/ https://missilethreat.csis.org/system/russian-air-defense/
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Two of those articles are pre-war; bit weird to cite given the difference in Russian performance between the theoretical and the in-practice thus far. Russia having lots of artillery tubes and shells has never been in doubt; it's other logistical aspects they seem to have struggled with. The gains in the Donbas are small, incremental, and balanced fairly well by losses near Kherson and Kharkiv. For the main axis of an invasion by one of the world's largest militaries, it's not much to brag about thus far.