3 ms·

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

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.
  - jollybean 4y ago
    For gosh sakes 'swarm' / 'saturation' practically the same thing. And yes, there's no point in 'hypersonic missile' obviously if you can just shoot $100K rockets, but the hypersonic cruise missiles have a much bigger payload and much longer range, and, likely cannot be used in 'saturation level activities' most times. 'hypersonic' are just cruise missiles that go a bit faster.
tim333 4y ago
I think an issue is HIMARS rockets are quite cheap compared to S300 ones. It's all fine using a $3m missile against a fighter jet but against half a dozen inexpensive missiles incoming they are a bit stuck. I read somewhere the Ukrainians were mixing cheaper non guided missiles in with the guided ones to make it harder for the Russians to shoot them all down.
- jollybean 4y ago
  True that. Literally getting S300 to go after HIMARS rockets will grind down Russia, they simply do not have the inventory. Recently, Russia has been using S300 as 'ground attack' munitions, going after railway junctions etc.. Which is kind of neat actually, that's a pretty dynamic bit of kit! But extremely desperate. Limited damage for enormous cost.

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.
- jollybean 4y ago
  For gosh sakes 'swarm' / 'saturation' practically the same thing. And yes, there's no point in 'hypersonic missile' obviously if you can just shoot $100K rockets, but the hypersonic cruise missiles have a much bigger payload and much longer range, and, likely cannot be used in 'saturation level activities' most times. 'hypersonic' are just cruise missiles that go a bit faster.

tim333 4y ago

I think an issue is HIMARS rockets are quite cheap compared to S300 ones. It's all fine using a $3m missile against a fighter jet but against half a dozen inexpensive missiles incoming they are a bit stuck. I read somewhere the Ukrainians were mixing cheaper non guided missiles in with the guided ones to make it harder for the Russians to shoot them all down.

jollybean 4y ago
True that. Literally getting S300 to go after HIMARS rockets will grind down Russia, they simply do not have the inventory. Recently, Russia has been using S300 as 'ground attack' munitions, going after railway junctions etc.. Which is kind of neat actually, that's a pretty dynamic bit of kit! But extremely desperate. Limited damage for enormous cost.