4 ms·

I 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 Ru

I 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 ago
It absolutely has not kept up. ATACMs are 30 years old. Russia just doesn’t have anything like it.
- konart 2y ago
  Only 250, 500, 1000, 1500 and 3000kg bombs with hacked-in winds and some navigation to hit you with 10-30m precision.
- dmix 2y ago
  Russia 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 ago
    Very little evidence of these being used to any effect comparable to ATACMs
    - dmix 2y ago
      Then 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 ago
        The 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
        dmix 2y ago
        You seem to have a narrow information bubble. I've some a large number of effective Iskander strikes. The only reason it's not pumping out only A-tier videos like ATACMS is because Patriot defends the most important assets and S-400 (or their staff) is a paper tiger that can't handle a maneuverable ballistic missile. But that hasn't stopped it from dealing some important blows and being a very valuable weapon.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You're kinda arguing about something else, though. Ukraine is hitting Russian air defenses with ATACMS, successfully and repeatedly. Corresponding attempts with Iskanders and Kinzhals to target the Patriots have largely failed. There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenarios - in either the attacking missiles, the defending systems, or both. Ukraine doesn't have enough Patriots to defend everywhere, but they're dramatically more effective than the Russian equivalents where they are stationed. If nothing else, the war has been a huge advertising boon for Western defense contractors.
        dmix 2y ago
        My assertion was Iskander is one of Russias best weapons, arguably more effective than Kalibr per rate of fire and very likely equivalent to ATACMS, or possibly better in terms of capabilities given it's a larger munition. > There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenario This is entirely premised on Russian air defense being equal in high value areas vs Ballistic missiles (which is easily the hardest test, even for the US). Patriot systems were tested many times IRL against SCUD missiles during Desert storm and more recently vs Iran, plus general skill available in US R&D/military, while Russia never tested their S-400 systems in (real) combat and is notorious for poor maintenance/training. Unless you equalize these 2 things it's a moot point. RU missile teams have had plenty of press about improving their operational effectiveness in the last year. AA has not. Additionally, these systems aren't that sophisticated, it's GPS+inertial navigation+maneuvering+maybe some limited anti-EW. The rest is intelligence, EW, operators, etc. ATACMS was designed in the mid 1980s after all...

jncfhnb 2y ago

It absolutely has not kept up. ATACMs are 30 years old. Russia just doesn’t have anything like it.

konart 2y ago
Only 250, 500, 1000, 1500 and 3000kg bombs with hacked-in winds and some navigation to hit you with 10-30m precision.
dmix 2y ago
Russia 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 ago
  Very little evidence of these being used to any effect comparable to ATACMs
  - dmix 2y ago
    Then 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 ago
      The 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
      - dmix 2y ago
        You seem to have a narrow information bubble. I've some a large number of effective Iskander strikes. The only reason it's not pumping out only A-tier videos like ATACMS is because Patriot defends the most important assets and S-400 (or their staff) is a paper tiger that can't handle a maneuverable ballistic missile. But that hasn't stopped it from dealing some important blows and being a very valuable weapon.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        You're kinda arguing about something else, though. Ukraine is hitting Russian air defenses with ATACMS, successfully and repeatedly. Corresponding attempts with Iskanders and Kinzhals to target the Patriots have largely failed. There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenarios - in either the attacking missiles, the defending systems, or both. Ukraine doesn't have enough Patriots to defend everywhere, but they're dramatically more effective than the Russian equivalents where they are stationed. If nothing else, the war has been a huge advertising boon for Western defense contractors.
        dmix 2y ago
        My assertion was Iskander is one of Russias best weapons, arguably more effective than Kalibr per rate of fire and very likely equivalent to ATACMS, or possibly better in terms of capabilities given it's a larger munition. > There seems to be a wide gap in capability between the two scenario This is entirely premised on Russian air defense being equal in high value areas vs Ballistic missiles (which is easily the hardest test, even for the US). Patriot systems were tested many times IRL against SCUD missiles during Desert storm and more recently vs Iran, plus general skill available in US R&D/military, while Russia never tested their S-400 systems in (real) combat and is notorious for poor maintenance/training. Unless you equalize these 2 things it's a moot point. RU missile teams have had plenty of press about improving their operational effectiveness in the last year. AA has not. Additionally, these systems aren't that sophisticated, it's GPS+inertial navigation+maneuvering+maybe some limited anti-EW. The rest is intelligence, EW, operators, etc. ATACMS was designed in the mid 1980s after all...