4 ms·

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

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

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