7 ms·
Russia Claims Breakthrough With ATACMS
- jncfhnb 2y agoDang they’re only 30 years behind us now.
- jasonvorhe 2y agoWhere do you get that information from?
- 1992spacemovie 2y agoThe last ATACMS was made 30 years ago.
- sharpshadow 2y agoThat’s not correct. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/documents/business-area-landing/mfc-Fast-Facts-ATACMS.pdf https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/m...
- gessha 2y ago> 65 designated as small businesses I find it amusing Lockheed Martin cares about small business arms component suppliers
- llamaimperative 2y agoI figure that’s because you’re unaware of how ludicrously complex and distributed the arms manufacturing industry is? Lockheed et al are primarily systems integrators. They have sprawling networks of vendors that they’re orchestrating to produce “their” weapon systems.
- popcalc 2y agoMost of those small businesses are owned by the sons and daughters of major family-owned contractors so they can get the designations. It's a farce.
- 1992spacemovie 2y agoThe same kind of stuff happened during the Iraq war - makes the normal person feel like the regular Joe or Jane is getting a piece of the action. But in reality they just let you get a pass through %. That movie War Dogs, while comical and inaccurate about a number of points, kinda was spot on about that one.
- kube-system 2y agoIt is not about “caring” it is about legal requirements. The government sometimes requires procurement from small business. e.g. https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_2 https://www.acquisition.gov/far/part-19#FAR_Subpart_19_2
- 1992spacemovie 2y agoSorry, the ATACMS design is 30 years old I should have said.
- pydry 2y ago[flagged]
- onemoresoop 2y agoCompletely lost on whose side?
- Arnt 2y agoNot going to say "lost", myself, but Russia looks oddly weak. It's the country that planned the fight in advance and could stock up, yet is buying from Iran and North Korea and AFAICT its own latest tank model still hasn't even been used once. It's the country that has a large air force and is using waves of untrained infantry attacks instead of air power. It's the country with the larger population yet recruiting mercenaries abroad. It's the country that's lost control of the Black Sea against an opponent that has no navy.
- squidbeak 2y agoATACMS is superseded by the Precision Strike Missile. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/precision-strike-missile.html https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/precision-stri...
- stanfordkid 2y agoI mean it’s easier to build something new than guess how a black box you don’t have access to works (short of spying on the manufacturing facility). I’m sure Russian missile technology has at least somewhat kept up.
- jncfhnb 2y agoIt absolutely has not kept up. ATACMs are 30 years old. Russia just doesn’t have anything like it.
- konart 2y agoOnly 250, 500, 1000, 1500 and 3000kg bombs with hacked-in winds and some navigation to hit you with 10-30m precision.
- dmix 2y agoRussia struggles to shoot down ATACMs, even with their most advanced SAMS, but they do have road mobile versions of Iskander which is pretty similar. They are just bigger and twice the cost.
- jncfhnb 2y agoVery little evidence of these being used to any effect comparable to ATACMs
- dmix 2y agoThen you haven't been following the war closely. I watch combat videos daily and Iskander is easily their most potent weapon after Lancet drones (and artillery). Patriot can't cover the whole massive frontlines.
- jncfhnb 2y agoThe iskander and lancet drones are absolutely not used to nearly the same efficacy as atacms. Those things are regularly just hurled at low value civilian targets in large part because of poor targeting. They’re generally not the road mobile variety either. The most potent weapon in their arsenal right now in terms of battlefield value are their helicopters and glide bombs
- ivanwood 2y ago[flagged]
- themgt 2y agoThe US Army announced that the first PrSM batch has been delivered in December 2023. Operational testing is expected in 2024, with low-rate initial production, full-rate production, and initial capability testing expected in 2025, according to the Government Accountability Office’s 2023 Weapons Systems Annual Assessment. A total of 110 PrSMs are expected to be procured in fiscal 2024 and 190 in fiscal 2025 It's fairly ridiculous to claim that ATACMS M57(?) last produced a few years to decade ago which are still our best-in-class available for operational use until ~2025+ are "30 years" old tech. The number of PrSMs we'll have by end of next year would last us about 24 hours in a great power war. https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/03/07/lockheed-precision-strike-missile/ https://www.thedefensepost.com/2024/03/07/lockheed-precision...
- jncfhnb 2y agoIt’s really quite reasonable. The basic capabilities of the ATACMS are not hugely changed and have been available for decades. Russia does not have an equivalent that is demonstrably deployed effectively. They’re also not the focal point of US military development. The quality of Russian equipment being deployed right now is really bad. The limiting factor here is not “science”. Fun bonus if you want to watch some people die: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1dv3086/north_korean_shells_in_the_russian_army/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/1dv3086/north_kore...
- themgt 2y agoRussia does not have an equivalent that is demonstrably deployed effectively. Ukraine is being hit with Iskander-M all the time, e.g. just days ago at Myrhorod taking out SU-27s. The quality of Russian equipment being deployed right now is really bad. And yet Ukraine is still losing territory, countless men, and the war. This blasé attitude is just bizarre, as if NATO has a secret stock of wunderwaffen about to be arrive and deliver the coup de grâce any day. NATO has spent a quarter trillion dollars+ on this proxy war, staked its credibility on it, and is losing. Fun bonus if you want to watch some people die: Things people who have lost their humanity say.
- 2y ago
- paganel 2y agoDo people in the US genuinely believe that? Makes me think of that the Germans thought of the Soviets before June of 1941.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> Do people in the US genuinely believe that? Yes, we fairly reasonably believe that Russia's struggle to make progress against a smaller neighbor using NATO hand-me-downs is heavily indicative of how they'd do against all of NATO using B-2s, F-22s and F-35s.
- paganel 2y agoInteresting. As a direct neighbor of Ukraine this hybris doesn’t sit all that well to me, but it is good to know, regardless.
- squidbeak 2y agoIt isn't hubris. Before the invasion western analysts were misled into believing Russian capabilities had or were near parity with modern western systems - one of the factors in the widespread assumption in western capitals on Feb 24, 2022 that Ukraine would fall in days. But Russian systems have mostly performed poorly in this war. Meanwhile Western systems have proven highly capable in all recent wars.
- lkasr 2y agoVietnam was a failure, Iraq was a failure, Afghanistan was a failure. I concede that NATO would put in more effort against Russia, but how about better not finding out in the first place? Russia would also put in more effort. This is hubris at its finest.
- ceejayoz 2y ago> I concede that NATO would put in more effort against Russia, but how about better not finding out in the first place? I mean, that's the point. That Russia's obvious takeaway from Ukraine should be "we'd lose fast and badly against actual NATO". As with Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, a loss in Ukraine is most likely to come from the West going "eh whatever good enough we're out", not superior tech on the Russian side.
- rado 2y agoConfusing headline. A few points inside: • Analyzing the missile’s maneuverability will determine which anti-aircraft missiles it can evade. • They might advise on disrupting the missile’s communication or disabling its GPS. • This analysis would help the RF military quickly detect launch sites and missile locations.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sharpshadow 2y agoWould be interesting to know how they got a intact ATACMS. It was clear from the beginning that every weapon system used in Ukraine could and probably would land on the black market, that’s why Israel didn’t provide any own weapon system fearing it would land in the hands of their enemies.
- Conasg 2y agoUsually it’s just a missile that belly-flopped due to a malfunction, and was then found and studied.
- justin66 2y agoIt's not inconceivable that a Russian counter-battery strike could force Ukrainian troops to flee (or kill them) but leave behind some intact equipment.
- dboreham 2y agoIf the US permitted ATACMS to be used in this theater, you can be 100% sure they know the Russians already have an ATACMS. So this is just propaganda.
- dmix 2y agoThey already have the replacement for ATACMS starting production so I don't think they are super concerned hiding a 35yr old missile
- simion314 2y ago>It was clear from the beginning that every weapon system used in Ukraine could and probably would land on the black market, that’s why Israel didn’t provide any own weapon system fearing it would land in the hands of their enemies. This is Zed propaganda/fake news , a soldier can't put a missile in his pocket and go home and exchange it for alcohol. I think the main concern is Ukrainians that are loyal to Kremlin and smuggle information witch is more easy then selling big stuff on the black market.
- kibwen 2y agoYou'd have to be either a liar or a fool to publicly admit that you've deciphered something about your opponent's secret capabilities. The allies didn't go bragging to the Nazis every time that they broke the enigma machine.
- Tade0 2y agoThere's a whole field of study, named Kremlinology, dedicated to deciphering what was it that the people there actually meant by saying this and that. I used to think that I had some additional insight, hailing from a country neighbouring Russia, but it takes being born on former soviet territory to fully understand their line of thinking. It's not that it's particularly sophisticated - just utterly foreign to anyone even west-adjacent.
- medo-bear 2y ago[flagged]
- jfengel 2y agoMaybe we could have avoided it. Maybe not. It's wishful thinking to say "All we had to do was give them what they wanted." I'll skip the tired historical comparison, but just point out that we can't know the counterfactual. I certainly do not deny American entitlement and exceptionalism, and I think it's a massive mistake on our part. But nobody in the US (or Europe) has any designs on Russian territory. Our mistake as about how we treat our friends, not our enemies. The Ukraine war was put NATO even more on Russia's borders, and Putin has been NATO's greatest salesman. It's hard to foresee an outcome that doesn't end with Ukraine (in whatever territory it can keep) joining NATO. America definitely needs to fix its attitude. But Russia appears intent on completely misunderstanding us, and doing so in ways that get its ass kicked. That's not good for anybody, but Russia least of all.
- medo-bear 2y ago[flagged]
- sceptical 2y agoObviously they disclose this so we don't waste any more ATACMS. How nice of them.
- red-iron-pine 2y agoreleased more for internal propaganda, and/or the countermeasures are already well known enough to the AFU / NATO that there is no reason to be coy about it. Plus the ATACMS still work with inertial guidance. that creates ever-increasing errors as the travel time increases but is often good enough for hitting strategic targets.
- klrtla 2y agoArticle claims that ATACMS have been highly effective, but all 5 missiles launched at Crimea recently were shot down. As usual, everything is completely unclear in this stalemate war where both sides regularly claim overwhelming successes yet nothing has changed for 2 years.
- lawn 2y ago> As usual, everything is completely unclear Its only completely unclear if you think that the words of a dictatorship is equally trustworthy as a democracy plus the journalism of the rest of the free world.
- mrtacy 2y agoTaken to the extreme, you can then also not trust the free world. Reuters also cites the Russian sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-kyiv-using-us-atacms-missiles-hit-civilian-targets-luhansk-2024-06-07/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-accuses-kyiv-usi... So either Russia shot down 4 of the 5 missiles and they landed in apartment buildings, or the one that landed on the beach was also shot down. Or they staged everything, including blowing up apartment buildings. Unlikely, since Defense Secretary Austin had emergency phone calls after the beach incident. Regarding the stalemate, maps shown at the Institute for the Study of War also show little change. No need for Russian sources here.
- ceejayoz 2y ago"Reuters was unable to immediately verify the assertion..."
- lawn 2y ago> Taken to the extreme, you can then also not trust the free world. Reuters also cites the Russian sources: Of course, not all free media is competent and Reuters is making the exact same mistake of blindly citing Russian sources without doing due diligence.
- 2y ago
- rdtsc 2y agoThis sounds like propaganda positioning mainly for their internal consumption. ”Look how we quickly deciphered this tricky American technology, it’s just another 3 days and Kiev is ours. And it has a quadruple safety system, how silly of those Americans! Let’s laugh at them together!” This a mid-80s technology and if they really just discovered something important and valuable about the technology, they would keep their mouths shut. If they put it out as a press release, it’s precisely because they didn’t discover anything new.
- TheLoafOfBread 2y agoVery much it is. For example we never heard what happened to this [0] Iskander dud which landed in Ukraine https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-found-dart-like-mystery-warheads-theyre-russias-new-weapon-2022-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-found-dart-like-myst...
- jasonlotito 2y agoPredication: Russia's claims are overinflated as usual; US Military will use this to get more money to increase lead. Net result: Will end up even farther ahead. 20 years from now, we'll find out this was also a lie.
- idaseing 2y agoRussians: How is it possible that this missile can track its location anywhere? Sir, we’ve found it uses GPS. Wow, we never would have guessed that. Sneaky Americans. Now that we know their secret, we can defeat them!
- rvschuilenburg 2y agoThe missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is - whichever is greater - it obtains a difference or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position that it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is is now the position that it wasn't, and if follows that the position that it was is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation. The variation being the difference between where the missile is and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows: Because a variation has modified some of the information that the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it know where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice versa. And by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.
- dekhn 2y agoNot helpful. From https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-missile-knows-where-it-is https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-missile-knows-where-it-is
- ceejayoz 2y ago> He stressed that the West should recognize the superiority of Russian weapons and countermeasures over Western military technology. Ah, yes. The logical conclusion.
- analognoise 2y agoI saw this too and couldn’t stop laughing.
- justin66 2y agoThis far along into the war, their personnel have already figured out how to engage ATACMS with the S-300 and S-400 (although recent losses of S-400 units to ATACMS show they aren't doing really well at it [0] ). We already know they're jamming GPS and ATACMS is still getting through with inertial guidance. Maybe some of this newfound knowledge will benefit their engineers somehow when designing new weapons, but it's not very new stuff, and their industry is not well positioned to exploit it. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/06/12/ukrainian-atacms-rockets-are-blowing-up-russias-best-s-400-air-defenses-as-fast-as-the-s-400s-can-deploy-to-crimea/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/06/12/ukrainian-a...
- TheLoafOfBread 2y agoHere is direct link on drone video of S400 destruction using ATACMS. https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1czed3k/strike_with_atacms_ballistic_missiles_on/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1czed3k/stri...
- justin66 2y agoWas there a radar on that site or did they destroy a bunch of launchers that had already fired? (not sure I understand what I'm watching)
- TheLoafOfBread 2y agoVery likely radar is in the middle of the launchers, from comments: S-300/400 TEL have to stay close to the Radar for mainly two reasons. The Radar vehicle also has the generator supplying the TELs with electricity. and the even more important reason is that the radar data can only be transmited over a short distance so if the TEL is too far out it can't get data from the Radar anymore. Edit: max range for a S-300 is 120m between the TELs and the Radar and since the S-400 is actually just a S-300PM3 its probably the same or at least very similar
- justin66 2y ago