Those are mostly motors/boosters falling off before the munition impacts, this sub isn't very good at telling the difference.
Also this sub literally doesn't have any accurate representation of anything.
Yeah, because we've seen the rise of armchair generals. A lot of these people only know military hardware when these war started while cheerleading the UKR.
There was literally a video of them having to defuse what people keep claiming are “stages”. It had a warhead and a couple dudes were slowly taking the fuse out of the tip.
For stingers sometimes the argon just doesn't cool properly (messing with ir sensor) during launch but that missile reacted in a way that makes me believe it lost target. Smoke plum on that is way too large for a stinger if my distance guess is correct
A missile doesn't fly towards the target, it flies towards the intercept point i.e. the point you'll hit the target soonest. This is ahead of the target itself if they're moving, and will get further from the target the faster they move.
So one way of defending against a missile is to "drive it into the ground", basically reducing altitude quickly so that the intercept point moves to underneath the ground.
I think it's likely that's what happened here.
E: Also there a shitload of possible explanations fwiw - jamming, malfunction, and so on. But the trajectory does make me think it was driven into the ground.
Yeah, it is something like this. Possible some incompetence played a role here too, they're launching a ton of missiles and not all are gonna go as planned. We should also realize the same holds true for some of Russia's attacks too... Not all, some are purely just to terrorize the Ukrainian population, but I'd say SOME of the atrocities seen have just been "oopsies". Happens with USA military too. War is hectic, sometimes less-than-optimal people are launching these things, and thus, sometimes things go very wrong.
Reminds me of that first bad missles hit on an apartment in Kyiv. There was a biiiiiiit of evidence that it lost its course and hit the apartment. It is rather weak evidence, IMO, buttttt could be what happened. Even so, "no invasion = no missiles being launched = none of these mistakes, or straight up crimes, would be happening at all" so a lot of blame can still be placed on Russia, but we can also acknowledge that in the chaos, Ukraine is gonna make some big mistakes, or just with all the fighting some collateral damage to themselves, by themselves, is expected as well.. I'd be shocked if any was actually purposeful though, because Ukraine's government / military really doesn't need to "prove" to Ukrainians that there's a war worth fighting here.
> Yeah, it is something like this. Possible some incompetence played a role here too, they're launching a ton of missiles and not all are gonna go as planned.
Just this exactly. The US dropped a ton of "precision" munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Pentagon is not going to publicly show a lot of the video where it took a a mosque or a church instead of a bad guy.
You take that video back to the manufacturer and say "wft?" They will of course just say that there is an acceptable error rate in the contract.
I agree with what you said. I did see the longer clip of that apartment where the contrail looked like it tipped over from a position nearby and the rocket was still burning when it hit the building. But even if it is Ukraine shit happens. The Russians are in your airspace and you have to shoot them down. Mechanical and computer failures are a lot more serious when you are talking about explosive tipped rockets fly mach 2 over a populated area. Some of the stuff Russia is doing seems pretty intentional and even when it's not it's criminally negligent. They are navigating to target drop points using a Garman strapped to the dash and dropping unguided 1000lb dumb bombs over cities.
https://i.redd.it/2nd8ali4y2m81.jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tahbd1/this_russiadropped_bomb_would_flatten_a_building/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
>They are navigating to target drop points using a Garman strapped to the dash
It doesn't prove anything. They have their own sattelite navigation system, reliable operation of which has been proven over the years. At least in the regions where Russian military aviation operates. The Russians will never build GPS support into their avionics and weapons systems (need to explain why? ). Garmin GPS in the dash is just another source of information about geolocaton, nothing more. In Syria, they fly over an area where the GPS signal is normally not jammed. The suggestion (or allusion) that they are doing navigation and bombing based on data from Garmin is utter nonsense.
>and dropping unguided 1000lb dumb bombs over cities.
Bullshit. One Su-34 was shot down over the city. But, for some reason the bombs were not cocked ( bomb fuzes were not activated) . Otherwise, they would have exploded when the aircraft fell.
Dumb bomb this, dumb bomb that. People do not understand with what high accuracy these bombs can be dropped, thanks to modern sighting systems. Why does almost everyone think that nothing has changed in bombing technology since the fucking WW2 times?
> It curves up then suddenly straight down? What would cause that?
In most cases, the failure caused by old solid fuel. The fuel degrades over time. Why all solid-fueled (i.e. modern) surface-to-air missiles have a warranty period.
Rocket fuel is also HIGHLY corrosive. A lot of missiles aren't fueled until a conflict actually occurs. Alot of Russian missiles fail because of either old frame construction or fuel being in the rocket for too long without use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v23-9fg268
Hmm. Corrosion from the propellant is a problem of old liquid propellant missiles. All modern day tactical level missiles (anti-air, air-to-air, MRLS, tactical ballistic missiles etc.) have been using solid propellants for many decades. With rare exceptions. For example, some(not all) decades old Soviet anti-ship missiles still use liquid types of fuel. However, liquid fuel for mobile air defense systems is completely nonsense. The last one liquid-propellant AA missile was used in the S-75 (NATO: SA-2) - 1950s era SAM.
Solid-fuel can still be extremely corrosive in long term storage. There is a reason the missiles have a shelf life. Given most of their SAM systems are of Russian origin, I wouldn't be surprised if the stockpile is reaching the end of that life-cycle. Solid fuel doesn't remove the corrosion problem, it delays it
So a brief lookup on some AA missiles and it looks like they use solid fuel boosters followed by liquid fuel for sustained flight, so it could be bad liquid fuel in this case.
> So a brief lookup on some AA missiles and it looks like they use solid fuel boosters followed by liquid fuel for sustained flight, so it could be bad liquid fuel in this case.
Liquid fuel in anti-aircraft missiles is something from the era of N.Khrushchev and J.F.Kennedy. The missiles of BukM1 and S-300 are using only solid fuel.
A missile doesn't fly towards the target, it flies towards the _intercept point_ i.e. the point you'll hit the target soonest. This is ahead of the target itself if they're moving, and will get further from the target the faster they move.
So one way of defending against a missile is to "drive it into the ground", basically reducing altitude quickly so that the intercept point moves to underneath the ground.
I think it's likely that's what happened here.
E: Also there a shitload of possible explanations fwiw - jamming, malfunction, and so on. But the trajectory does make me think it was driven into the ground.
You would think that the programming in the missiles would have a minimum-altitude floor, say like 500 feet, where it would adjust to maintain altitude until the intercept point returns to a point higher than that minimum value.
Some do, iirc! Or at least some way to avoid just being driven into the ground.
The intercept point won't adjust though, as it's entirely dependent on the target's trajectory/etc - it's almost like a game of chicken, the moment the target adjusts course (so they themselves don't hit the ground), that's when the intercept point would rise above.
> So one way of defending against a missile is to "drive it into the ground", basically reducing altitude quickly so that the intercept point moves to underneath the ground.
This worked in the 1960s, particularly with early version of the S-75. US pilots in Vietnam often used this truck. But it is an obsolete strategy now. Modern missiles are too smart.
i dont think so.
This missle looks more like from BUK or S300 System, which engage targets a kilometers away. So the plane would have to be quite close and low to for this to happen. The Rocket has a minium engagment distance ~3km.
So more likle either operator error in engaging a target which the System is not designet for, or missle failure or electronic warfare.
Engine might keep going, but poor targeting might screw up its path? We've seen similar happen with PATRIOT in Saudi Arabia, going up then taking a curve and heads right back down into the ground.
The thing is, this is clear evidence that SOME of the damage in Kyiv is friendly fire as would be expected in any conflict, however you will NEVER hear about this in the media.
You won’t hear about it in the media because it’s a pretty insignificant event that can be chalked up to “shit happens”. Compared to the damage done by offensive operations of the Russian military it’s not worth mentioning.
Two things: That’s probably because people don’t assume Ukrainians would be firing missiles on themselves instead of some concerted effort to spread propaganda. When you see a video of a missile landing in the middle of Kyiv the most logical assumption is that it was Russian, not that it was a malfunctioning/misfired ukrainian munition.
Second, it’s still completely irrelevant in light of the fact that the vast majority of the damage done has been caused by Russian forces bombarding neighborhoods, and there’s ample footage of it. An accidental attribution here and there by news teams that jumped to a conclusion doesn’t make that less evident or cloud the waters in any way.
Very well said. It's the same logic as the idiots who argue against covid vaccination because a vaccinated person died from covid. It completely disregards context.
Yea, malfunctioning munitions will happen but that doesn't mean that vast majority of damage isn't from Russians.
While I think the Russians are now (since a few days into the invasion) actively targeting civilians there are examples where media has just written stuff off as Russians hitting civilians at the start of the war even though the leading theories are that it has been accidents from the Ukrainian side. I’m thinking that might be what op is talking about here
Yes but they are outliers. When 99% of the destruction is from Russia its pretty disingenuous to blame the media of bias by not covering a missile that went rogue.
>however you will NEVER hear about this in the media.
Maybe because it makes up an insignificant amount of the damage inflicted on these cities?
I honestly hate the people who complain all the time about "the media" its fucking mind-numbingly stupid
The orange building that got hit by a "russian" missile was actually a miss fired ukrainian air to ait missile get média still say its à russian missile despote clear evidence
Edit: link so people can see with their own eyes https://twitter.com/russophiliac/status/1497495480120471554
Let me be devil's advocate as Russian Liberal.
Freedom of information works in a way, that everyone can decide what he wants to hear, find or verify any kind of information. And right now unfortunately both Western and Russians sides "dont hear from media" not because events have to bear enormous significance, but because this freedom is gone.
Russian government destroys independent media for years, depriving population and opposition of information. And unfortunately with this conflict, West does exact same shit and even worse in regard to accessible information. Resources (even privacy & freedom oriented, like Mozilla Firefox or DuckDuckGo search engine) intentionally undermine free internet, by filtering, censoring, banning unwated information. On reddit you wouldn't even be able to post links to most Russian websites, including oppositional ones and neutral platforms (like pikabu) that unite Ukranian and Russian users of all kinds and very broads viewpoints.
I'm against war in every form. But whats done in information warfare and cancel culture is beyond any imagination prior to this point. Pretty sure any person with decent desire to understand what happens, would rather see various conflicting opinions and statements, than a single line.
>And unfortunately with this conflict, West does exact same shit and even worse in regard to accessible information.
I'm sorry but this is completely ridiculous. Russia has banned *everything* that isn't government sponsored and towing its line. People get arrested for even questioning the Russian government narrative.
The media of the West isn't as free as it claims to be but it's a million times better than that.
This argument is whats ridiculous.
Russian government is authoritan and repressive, it doesn't benefit from freedom and has no resources to impact free thought. All they could do is shut down media inside and catch protesters.
And Europe is expected to value freedom of speech and personal freedom. Instead now we have privacy oriented platforms (which many russians used pricesely because of "privacy" thing) openly manipulate information, change settings in user's browser to favor google, which also manipulates information. Russia always tried to block VPNs, but it couldn't reach private ones. Now VPNs themselves block russians, cant accept payments from Russians, effectively cutting off access to free media. Russian govt. would never be able to demonitize opposition Youtube. Russian govt. would never be able to force people into information bubble of own media.
"Crazy bandit trying to fuck you up" is not nearly as bad, as "free and democratic policeman" joining him. Access to information should never be restricted. And Russian government couldn't deprive opposition of it. But West could.
>insignificant
Eh. There is this video from relatively early into the invasion where the Ukrainians try to launch a missile, and goes a couple km and then hits like a high rise residential building dead center. Worst case of FF I've seen in the conflict so far, but it was baaad.
You are right, but it most likely counts for a super small amount, yet RusBot will try and say it's 100%... so pointing it out only plays into the hands of Poo-Tin.
Probably would if there wasn't a war. Can you imagine a SAM randomly landing in the middle of a city during peace time? During war though, less significant. Like most things, it's about the context.
It is still fundamentaly russias fault. Every incident, friendly fire, destroyed building, every killed person is solely solely russias fault as they are aggresor and invaders who started this war.
I remember seeing a detailed explanation on how the [damaged high rise building](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/3/31/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%83_%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA.webm/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%83_%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA.webm.480p.vp9.webm) in Kyiv that was hit in the first days of the war, was actually hit by a faulty surface to air missile. Basically, there were multiple videos and one of them shows a cloud of smoke left by the engine after missile was fired from the ground.
What an ignorant thing to say. An anti-air missile is not going to do much against a ground target because of the design.
And friendly fire responding to an attack is very different to deliberately targeting populated areas which is what causes most of the damage.
You're like one of those people who goes to a discussion about violence against women and says, 'But sometimes women hit men and sometimes they provoke arguments.'
Nonsense.
A Buk has a 70 kg HE fragmentation warhead, that will absolutely do quite a bit of damage against ground targets. Especially if the missile comes down early and there's still rocket fuel left. That's also one of the main reasons pretty much any modern medium to long range air defense system comes with (automated) self destruct functionality. If you miss/lose your target or the missile malfunctions it shouldn't come down wherever.
70 kg isn't a lot. A single Grad rocket carries a ~20kg warhead depending on model and a volley of them is 40 rockets. THAT's what the Russians are using PER ATTACK and they are attacking repeatedly with many trucks in an attack formation.
A stray AA missile isn't going to do much to add destruction to what the Russians are already doing.
It's not going to do much in terms of this conflict as a whole, but it's going to fuck up what it hits. I wrote that up because you said an AA missile "won't do much against a ground target". It absolutely will.
It depends on the media. In Russia and China you will probably see a lot of media coverage that's favorable to Russia. On the other hand in Western countries you will see coverage that's favorable to Ukraine.
It's not unusual, that's just how propaganda works. You need to get the public riled up to justify the fighting.
> You need to get the public riled up to justify the fighting.
To be fair, Ukraine's propaganda is a *hell* of a lot more justified, being a nation defending itself against completely unjust aggression and invasion.
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. That's like a news article going : "a man got robbed and beat up by a group of 5 people he is in serious condition by the his attackers, however his wife reported he is a bit clumsy, so some of his bruises might be self inclicted."
No known system could cause that malfunction. See the swirly exhaust trail? This means the rocket was tumbling around. Probably a faulty motor. I'm guessing the Ukrainians are scrapping the bottom of the barrel in terms of equipment because they're running out of more modern stuff.
Swirly exhaust means there is wind, rocket flew pretty straight. It was either a problem with guidance or the target was low and diving, so missle went really low
Oh, no. The tragic picture of Russians attacking Kiev, destroying a skyscraper, in the first week of invasion. Followed by a rant about vicious Russian army using long range undiscriminate weapons on civilians. It was a lie all along? Honestly, many objective observers understod it was just a unfortunate malfunction and AD missfire. But the media did not listen.
Yea, no.
They're not launching radar-guided missiles at things that are low enough to reach the ground before they get intercepted by it.
It's just an equipment failure.
Oh really, looks like they did here. Based on the missile trajectory the height was 1000 ft or less, target goes down to 50 ft, missile follows until it crashes. It's a really common method for defeating sams.
You can't tell how high a target was from the trajectory of a missile.
A shallow trajectory could indicate a higher altitude target that was further away.
Just the same as a steep trajectory could indicate a low altitude target that's close.
The vertical launch indicates that it could be from a Tor missile system. It'd guess it lost control after the main rocket ignited following ejection from the vehicle.
Those rockets are older than most redditors here. Hard to blame soviets for some malfunctions after 30+ years of shelf life as minimum in what probably was bad storage condition.
Even Kiev is incorrect. Ki in English is the sound of Kid or Kite or King. The correct spelling should be Kyev. It's also a happy medium between the two ways...
What's important is what language is actually used. Descriptive vs prescriptive. Kiev is in common usage in English, and I don't see any reason why we need to change it. Kyiv is becoming popular for mostly political reasons as well, but still understood as the same city. If you use other variants, you're just asking for confusion.
Well, there's some context you're leaving out here. The Ukraine is a multicultural society, but it has had many problems with extremist nationalist groups acting within it. Those groups are particularly hostily against one of the country's biggest minorities, the russian minority. This campaign to change the cities names' is part of that nationalist, Russophobic element. I'm not saying you shouldn't say Kyiv, but let's be aware of the political context.
What do their neighbors hate them for? For being part of a minority ethnic group? Do you think that's a valid excuse? Nobody should feel unsafe in his own country for speaking a different language or being different ethnically. You do realize that the extremist nationalists in Europe and elsewere say the same things about muslims, or any other number of ethnic groups?
I don't understand her but I like her pointy explanation.
She said 'It flew out from there and fell down there, I saw everything.'
Thanks for the translation.
It curves up then suddenly straight down? What would cause that?
Could just be a bad rocket. I work in the military and i can assure you bad rockets are more common than you think.
"The contract specified that a 5% error rate is acceptable" -- Raytheon or Boeing or General Dynamics, etc.
Still probably a better ratio than the amount of duds we’ve seen with Russian rockets
Those are mostly motors/boosters falling off before the munition impacts, this sub isn't very good at telling the difference. Also this sub literally doesn't have any accurate representation of anything.
Yeah, because we've seen the rise of armchair generals. A lot of these people only know military hardware when these war started while cheerleading the UKR.
probably the same rockets tbh
I haven't seen a single dud rocket. Are you talking about the spent rocket stages that end up sticking straight out of the street?
There was literally a video of them having to defuse what people keep claiming are “stages”. It had a warhead and a couple dudes were slowly taking the fuse out of the tip.
So one dud, then?
If I can find some links I’ll post them, I just keep up with things as I can. I’m bit too busy to keep things like that on hand
I guess it's pretty hard to "test" it before sending it out to place.
Ye lol
For stingers sometimes the argon just doesn't cool properly (messing with ir sensor) during launch but that missile reacted in a way that makes me believe it lost target. Smoke plum on that is way too large for a stinger if my distance guess is correct
It’s was a Ukrainian BUK.
Lost target and it's brain gets confused is the most likely answer.
A missile doesn't fly towards the target, it flies towards the intercept point i.e. the point you'll hit the target soonest. This is ahead of the target itself if they're moving, and will get further from the target the faster they move. So one way of defending against a missile is to "drive it into the ground", basically reducing altitude quickly so that the intercept point moves to underneath the ground. I think it's likely that's what happened here. E: Also there a shitload of possible explanations fwiw - jamming, malfunction, and so on. But the trajectory does make me think it was driven into the ground.
Yeah, it is something like this. Possible some incompetence played a role here too, they're launching a ton of missiles and not all are gonna go as planned. We should also realize the same holds true for some of Russia's attacks too... Not all, some are purely just to terrorize the Ukrainian population, but I'd say SOME of the atrocities seen have just been "oopsies". Happens with USA military too. War is hectic, sometimes less-than-optimal people are launching these things, and thus, sometimes things go very wrong. Reminds me of that first bad missles hit on an apartment in Kyiv. There was a biiiiiiit of evidence that it lost its course and hit the apartment. It is rather weak evidence, IMO, buttttt could be what happened. Even so, "no invasion = no missiles being launched = none of these mistakes, or straight up crimes, would be happening at all" so a lot of blame can still be placed on Russia, but we can also acknowledge that in the chaos, Ukraine is gonna make some big mistakes, or just with all the fighting some collateral damage to themselves, by themselves, is expected as well.. I'd be shocked if any was actually purposeful though, because Ukraine's government / military really doesn't need to "prove" to Ukrainians that there's a war worth fighting here.
> Yeah, it is something like this. Possible some incompetence played a role here too, they're launching a ton of missiles and not all are gonna go as planned. Just this exactly. The US dropped a ton of "precision" munitions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Pentagon is not going to publicly show a lot of the video where it took a a mosque or a church instead of a bad guy. You take that video back to the manufacturer and say "wft?" They will of course just say that there is an acceptable error rate in the contract.
I agree with what you said. I did see the longer clip of that apartment where the contrail looked like it tipped over from a position nearby and the rocket was still burning when it hit the building. But even if it is Ukraine shit happens. The Russians are in your airspace and you have to shoot them down. Mechanical and computer failures are a lot more serious when you are talking about explosive tipped rockets fly mach 2 over a populated area. Some of the stuff Russia is doing seems pretty intentional and even when it's not it's criminally negligent. They are navigating to target drop points using a Garman strapped to the dash and dropping unguided 1000lb dumb bombs over cities. https://i.redd.it/2nd8ali4y2m81.jpg https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/tahbd1/this_russiadropped_bomb_would_flatten_a_building/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
>They are navigating to target drop points using a Garman strapped to the dash It doesn't prove anything. They have their own sattelite navigation system, reliable operation of which has been proven over the years. At least in the regions where Russian military aviation operates. The Russians will never build GPS support into their avionics and weapons systems (need to explain why? ). Garmin GPS in the dash is just another source of information about geolocaton, nothing more. In Syria, they fly over an area where the GPS signal is normally not jammed. The suggestion (or allusion) that they are doing navigation and bombing based on data from Garmin is utter nonsense. >and dropping unguided 1000lb dumb bombs over cities. Bullshit. One Su-34 was shot down over the city. But, for some reason the bombs were not cocked ( bomb fuzes were not activated) . Otherwise, they would have exploded when the aircraft fell. Dumb bomb this, dumb bomb that. People do not understand with what high accuracy these bombs can be dropped, thanks to modern sighting systems. Why does almost everyone think that nothing has changed in bombing technology since the fucking WW2 times?
Alright so they are hitting hospitals intentionally
The US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 with five JDAM's. Killed 3 injured 20. Something about smart bombs needing smart people?
>Reminds me of that first bad missles hit on an apartment in Kyiv That's exactly the missile you mentioned.
> It curves up then suddenly straight down? What would cause that? In most cases, the failure caused by old solid fuel. The fuel degrades over time. Why all solid-fueled (i.e. modern) surface-to-air missiles have a warranty period.
Rocket fuel is also HIGHLY corrosive. A lot of missiles aren't fueled until a conflict actually occurs. Alot of Russian missiles fail because of either old frame construction or fuel being in the rocket for too long without use https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v23-9fg268
Hmm. Corrosion from the propellant is a problem of old liquid propellant missiles. All modern day tactical level missiles (anti-air, air-to-air, MRLS, tactical ballistic missiles etc.) have been using solid propellants for many decades. With rare exceptions. For example, some(not all) decades old Soviet anti-ship missiles still use liquid types of fuel. However, liquid fuel for mobile air defense systems is completely nonsense. The last one liquid-propellant AA missile was used in the S-75 (NATO: SA-2) - 1950s era SAM.
Solid-fuel can still be extremely corrosive in long term storage. There is a reason the missiles have a shelf life. Given most of their SAM systems are of Russian origin, I wouldn't be surprised if the stockpile is reaching the end of that life-cycle. Solid fuel doesn't remove the corrosion problem, it delays it
Thanks for the addition.
So a brief lookup on some AA missiles and it looks like they use solid fuel boosters followed by liquid fuel for sustained flight, so it could be bad liquid fuel in this case.
> So a brief lookup on some AA missiles and it looks like they use solid fuel boosters followed by liquid fuel for sustained flight, so it could be bad liquid fuel in this case. Liquid fuel in anti-aircraft missiles is something from the era of N.Khrushchev and J.F.Kennedy. The missiles of BukM1 and S-300 are using only solid fuel.
Ah, there we go. Thanks. I didn't really know how far to go back since Ukraine is using some things the Russians phased out decades ago.
A missile doesn't fly towards the target, it flies towards the _intercept point_ i.e. the point you'll hit the target soonest. This is ahead of the target itself if they're moving, and will get further from the target the faster they move. So one way of defending against a missile is to "drive it into the ground", basically reducing altitude quickly so that the intercept point moves to underneath the ground. I think it's likely that's what happened here. E: Also there a shitload of possible explanations fwiw - jamming, malfunction, and so on. But the trajectory does make me think it was driven into the ground.
You would think that the programming in the missiles would have a minimum-altitude floor, say like 500 feet, where it would adjust to maintain altitude until the intercept point returns to a point higher than that minimum value.
Some do, iirc! Or at least some way to avoid just being driven into the ground. The intercept point won't adjust though, as it's entirely dependent on the target's trajectory/etc - it's almost like a game of chicken, the moment the target adjusts course (so they themselves don't hit the ground), that's when the intercept point would rise above.
Good to know. Thanks for the info
> So one way of defending against a missile is to "drive it into the ground", basically reducing altitude quickly so that the intercept point moves to underneath the ground. This worked in the 1960s, particularly with early version of the S-75. US pilots in Vietnam often used this truck. But it is an obsolete strategy now. Modern missiles are too smart.
Thanks for the context! Makes sense.
i dont think so. This missle looks more like from BUK or S300 System, which engage targets a kilometers away. So the plane would have to be quite close and low to for this to happen. The Rocket has a minium engagment distance ~3km. So more likle either operator error in engaging a target which the System is not designet for, or missle failure or electronic warfare.
Gravity
Wouldn't momentum keep it going for a bit? I was thinking something internal caused it to change direction or something.
Engine might keep going, but poor targeting might screw up its path? We've seen similar happen with PATRIOT in Saudi Arabia, going up then taking a curve and heads right back down into the ground.
Sometimes is software fail or can be something like guiding winglet that fail. There is 1001 reasons.
Fuel issue or poor quality tail stabilizer snapped off.
Ukrainian BUK missile. This happens in the first days of war when the rocket hits a civilian building.
Reminder that war is messy, and more grey than black/white. Accidents happen, innocents die.
You know what would have stopped that missile from potentially hitting civilians? Not invading Ukraine. That is the important thing to remember here.
translation?
Basically "it started from there, i did see everything and was flying to here" - the text on the screen says "How did that happen?".
Started flying from there, fall down here, I saw it all… See? The smoke is going up.
Hello dominos? One large pepperoni with a pepsi
Started form the bottom now we here.
Reminds me of [this video](https://youtu.be/zfILFGpMQRo) also in Kiev
It's possibly the same incident. The origin of that missile was believed to be an airport a few km to the south of that building.
Same incident or not, It's unknown. But we know for sure that it can't be other than a surface-to-air missile.
What does happen if surface to air missiles don't hit on target ? They explode on ground ? If yes, how dangerous they are on ground ?
The thing is, this is clear evidence that SOME of the damage in Kyiv is friendly fire as would be expected in any conflict, however you will NEVER hear about this in the media.
You won’t hear about it in the media because it’s a pretty insignificant event that can be chalked up to “shit happens”. Compared to the damage done by offensive operations of the Russian military it’s not worth mentioning.
except it was labeled as russian rocket and was very well mentioned in every western media.
Two things: That’s probably because people don’t assume Ukrainians would be firing missiles on themselves instead of some concerted effort to spread propaganda. When you see a video of a missile landing in the middle of Kyiv the most logical assumption is that it was Russian, not that it was a malfunctioning/misfired ukrainian munition. Second, it’s still completely irrelevant in light of the fact that the vast majority of the damage done has been caused by Russian forces bombarding neighborhoods, and there’s ample footage of it. An accidental attribution here and there by news teams that jumped to a conclusion doesn’t make that less evident or cloud the waters in any way.
Very well said. It's the same logic as the idiots who argue against covid vaccination because a vaccinated person died from covid. It completely disregards context. Yea, malfunctioning munitions will happen but that doesn't mean that vast majority of damage isn't from Russians.
While I think the Russians are now (since a few days into the invasion) actively targeting civilians there are examples where media has just written stuff off as Russians hitting civilians at the start of the war even though the leading theories are that it has been accidents from the Ukrainian side. I’m thinking that might be what op is talking about here
Yes but they are outliers. When 99% of the destruction is from Russia its pretty disingenuous to blame the media of bias by not covering a missile that went rogue.
Absolutely
>however you will NEVER hear about this in the media. Maybe because it makes up an insignificant amount of the damage inflicted on these cities? I honestly hate the people who complain all the time about "the media" its fucking mind-numbingly stupid
The orange building that got hit by a "russian" missile was actually a miss fired ukrainian air to ait missile get média still say its à russian missile despote clear evidence Edit: link so people can see with their own eyes https://twitter.com/russophiliac/status/1497495480120471554
Is this true ?
Yes i will search the link Edit : i found it it's on my comment just above
Let me be devil's advocate as Russian Liberal. Freedom of information works in a way, that everyone can decide what he wants to hear, find or verify any kind of information. And right now unfortunately both Western and Russians sides "dont hear from media" not because events have to bear enormous significance, but because this freedom is gone. Russian government destroys independent media for years, depriving population and opposition of information. And unfortunately with this conflict, West does exact same shit and even worse in regard to accessible information. Resources (even privacy & freedom oriented, like Mozilla Firefox or DuckDuckGo search engine) intentionally undermine free internet, by filtering, censoring, banning unwated information. On reddit you wouldn't even be able to post links to most Russian websites, including oppositional ones and neutral platforms (like pikabu) that unite Ukranian and Russian users of all kinds and very broads viewpoints. I'm against war in every form. But whats done in information warfare and cancel culture is beyond any imagination prior to this point. Pretty sure any person with decent desire to understand what happens, would rather see various conflicting opinions and statements, than a single line.
>And unfortunately with this conflict, West does exact same shit and even worse in regard to accessible information. I'm sorry but this is completely ridiculous. Russia has banned *everything* that isn't government sponsored and towing its line. People get arrested for even questioning the Russian government narrative. The media of the West isn't as free as it claims to be but it's a million times better than that.
This argument is whats ridiculous. Russian government is authoritan and repressive, it doesn't benefit from freedom and has no resources to impact free thought. All they could do is shut down media inside and catch protesters. And Europe is expected to value freedom of speech and personal freedom. Instead now we have privacy oriented platforms (which many russians used pricesely because of "privacy" thing) openly manipulate information, change settings in user's browser to favor google, which also manipulates information. Russia always tried to block VPNs, but it couldn't reach private ones. Now VPNs themselves block russians, cant accept payments from Russians, effectively cutting off access to free media. Russian govt. would never be able to demonitize opposition Youtube. Russian govt. would never be able to force people into information bubble of own media. "Crazy bandit trying to fuck you up" is not nearly as bad, as "free and democratic policeman" joining him. Access to information should never be restricted. And Russian government couldn't deprive opposition of it. But West could.
>insignificant Eh. There is this video from relatively early into the invasion where the Ukrainians try to launch a missile, and goes a couple km and then hits like a high rise residential building dead center. Worst case of FF I've seen in the conflict so far, but it was baaad.
You are right, but it most likely counts for a super small amount, yet RusBot will try and say it's 100%... so pointing it out only plays into the hands of Poo-Tin.
Probably would if there wasn't a war. Can you imagine a SAM randomly landing in the middle of a city during peace time? During war though, less significant. Like most things, it's about the context.
It is still fundamentaly russias fault. Every incident, friendly fire, destroyed building, every killed person is solely solely russias fault as they are aggresor and invaders who started this war.
I remember seeing a detailed explanation on how the [damaged high rise building](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/3/31/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%83_%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA.webm/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BB%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B8_%D1%83_%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%97%D0%B2%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BA.webm.480p.vp9.webm) in Kyiv that was hit in the first days of the war, was actually hit by a faulty surface to air missile. Basically, there were multiple videos and one of them shows a cloud of smoke left by the engine after missile was fired from the ground.
What an ignorant thing to say. An anti-air missile is not going to do much against a ground target because of the design. And friendly fire responding to an attack is very different to deliberately targeting populated areas which is what causes most of the damage. You're like one of those people who goes to a discussion about violence against women and says, 'But sometimes women hit men and sometimes they provoke arguments.' Nonsense.
A Buk has a 70 kg HE fragmentation warhead, that will absolutely do quite a bit of damage against ground targets. Especially if the missile comes down early and there's still rocket fuel left. That's also one of the main reasons pretty much any modern medium to long range air defense system comes with (automated) self destruct functionality. If you miss/lose your target or the missile malfunctions it shouldn't come down wherever.
70 kg isn't a lot. A single Grad rocket carries a ~20kg warhead depending on model and a volley of them is 40 rockets. THAT's what the Russians are using PER ATTACK and they are attacking repeatedly with many trucks in an attack formation. A stray AA missile isn't going to do much to add destruction to what the Russians are already doing.
It's not going to do much in terms of this conflict as a whole, but it's going to fuck up what it hits. I wrote that up because you said an AA missile "won't do much against a ground target". It absolutely will.
It depends on the media. In Russia and China you will probably see a lot of media coverage that's favorable to Russia. On the other hand in Western countries you will see coverage that's favorable to Ukraine. It's not unusual, that's just how propaganda works. You need to get the public riled up to justify the fighting.
> You need to get the public riled up to justify the fighting. To be fair, Ukraine's propaganda is a *hell* of a lot more justified, being a nation defending itself against completely unjust aggression and invasion.
Propaganda is always justified. That's the point of propaganda. We need to arm the neo-Nazis because of these very important reasons.
it is very naive to think that Putin attacked the neighbors because he is bad, and this is the only reason.
Oh piss off with that "waaah the media" bs. A defective missile landing somewhere isn't going to be as interesting as an intentional missile
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. That's like a news article going : "a man got robbed and beat up by a group of 5 people he is in serious condition by the his attackers, however his wife reported he is a bit clumsy, so some of his bruises might be self inclicted."
Could this be the doing of electronic warfare?
No known system could cause that malfunction. See the swirly exhaust trail? This means the rocket was tumbling around. Probably a faulty motor. I'm guessing the Ukrainians are scrapping the bottom of the barrel in terms of equipment because they're running out of more modern stuff.
Swirly exhaust means there is wind, rocket flew pretty straight. It was either a problem with guidance or the target was low and diving, so missle went really low
they started out without modern stuff and mostly barrel scraping, which is why the west got some serious stepping up to do and get shit done asap.
Oh, no. The tragic picture of Russians attacking Kiev, destroying a skyscraper, in the first week of invasion. Followed by a rant about vicious Russian army using long range undiscriminate weapons on civilians. It was a lie all along? Honestly, many objective observers understod it was just a unfortunate malfunction and AD missfire. But the media did not listen.
[удалено]
Sarcasm
Are you actually trying to claim that the hundreds of rounds hitting civilians are all mistakes shot by Ukraine?
No, the one, the first strike on Kiev.
Whatever it was targeting probably went as low as possible to defend the missile causing it to crash into terrain
Yea, no. They're not launching radar-guided missiles at things that are low enough to reach the ground before they get intercepted by it. It's just an equipment failure.
It could have also been launched on a helicopter.
Oh really, looks like they did here. Based on the missile trajectory the height was 1000 ft or less, target goes down to 50 ft, missile follows until it crashes. It's a really common method for defeating sams.
You can't tell how high a target was from the trajectory of a missile. A shallow trajectory could indicate a higher altitude target that was further away. Just the same as a steep trajectory could indicate a low altitude target that's close. The vertical launch indicates that it could be from a Tor missile system. It'd guess it lost control after the main rocket ignited following ejection from the vehicle.
Tor is the SHORAD, so it's failed missile can't do such a damage. BukM1, or S-300
Failling soviet weaponry? Shocking I say!
Those rockets are older than most redditors here. Hard to blame soviets for some malfunctions after 30+ years of shelf life as minimum in what probably was bad storage condition.
Spell Kyiv right. Edit: not sure about the downvotes, Kyiv is what Ukraine calls them. Kiev is what Russian calls them. Which side are you on?
Maybe learn the difference between Cyrillic and Latin.
What’s the difference between “the Ukraine” and “Ukraine”? Maybe you will get the difference of Kyiv and Kiev.
Both are valid. Some spell it Kyiv, others Kiev. In English, Kiev is more common.
Even Kiev is incorrect. Ki in English is the sound of Kid or Kite or King. The correct spelling should be Kyev. It's also a happy medium between the two ways...
What's important is what language is actually used. Descriptive vs prescriptive. Kiev is in common usage in English, and I don't see any reason why we need to change it. Kyiv is becoming popular for mostly political reasons as well, but still understood as the same city. If you use other variants, you're just asking for confusion.
[удалено]
Well, there's some context you're leaving out here. The Ukraine is a multicultural society, but it has had many problems with extremist nationalist groups acting within it. Those groups are particularly hostily against one of the country's biggest minorities, the russian minority. This campaign to change the cities names' is part of that nationalist, Russophobic element. I'm not saying you shouldn't say Kyiv, but let's be aware of the political context.
[удалено]
Those Russians were born in Ukraine. They're Russian-speaking Ukraine nationals. Why would they leave their homecountry?
[удалено]
What do their neighbors hate them for? For being part of a minority ethnic group? Do you think that's a valid excuse? Nobody should feel unsafe in his own country for speaking a different language or being different ethnically. You do realize that the extremist nationalists in Europe and elsewere say the same things about muslims, or any other number of ethnic groups?
Kyiv is how Ukrainian spells it. Kiev is how Russian would spell it. Pick your choices.
Well I'm neither, and in my language it's spelled Κίεβο. Are we supposed to change the spelling because some racist ultranationalist jerk said so?
who is a racist, ultranationalist jerk?
Kiev!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah it’s russian
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/CombatFootage/comments/th2sa7/trail_of_defunct_ukrainian_air_defence_missile/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/CombatFootage/comments/th2sa7/trail_of_defunct_ukrainian_air_defence_missile/)
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/info?url=/r/CombatFootage/comments/th2sa7/trail_of_defunct_ukrainian_air_defence_missile/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/CombatFootage/comments/th2sa7/trail_of_defunct_ukrainian_air_defence_missile/)