3 ms·

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 def

by 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.

by vasac 4y ago

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.