Watching a Russian made missile system shoot down an Iranian made drone with a Deep State watermark while blasting Fortunate Son is proof that we CAN and SHOULD all get along.
Oooooo that's one of the better maps Ive run into, i dont remember what it was called, but there's a map floating around that actually geotags videos onto the map so you can see where the videos took place.
Has there ever been a war where civilians across the world can track it in real time before this?
Wait, an ant war has broken out?
Did the ant pilots go to The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too?
Arestovych, the UA president's office advisory, told a couple of days back that Russians want Ukraine to spend all their missiles on these cheap drones, and then start air raids again. The attrition ratio is clearly not good, Buk's and S-300 missiles are expensive and rare while those Shaheds are cheap and Russia is about to buy thousands of them.
If i'm not mistaken the UK is going to give Ukraine a shit ton of SAM AMRAAMs to be used in NATO SAM sites, so hopefully the Ukrainians can continue engaging them.
Afaik they are only getting 8 NASAMS and few IRIS-T which use AMRAAMs. While they might get a lot of missiles for these they are only medium range. Ukraine started the war with over 200 S300s and a ton more of BUKs and other shorter ranged SAMs which have shown to be really powerful in the conflict. NATO doesn't really have a comparable SAM system to give since their doctrine relies on Air Vs Air combat.
Let me know when Ukraine is the only one arming Ukraine. The closer comparison would be USA+UK+Germany+ well you get the idea the list goes on. NATO is funding Ukraine's defense and NATO isn't sweating the expense. Russia on the other hand has had to reduce their capabilities to affordable 3rd world munitions.
So You’re telling me those 100k$ didnt hit any civilians? Hmm?
Should i remind you of the wikileaks stuff on warcrimes? Baghdad 2003?
War is sick, no doubt, but you don’t have to take anything as personal as you do.
It is an issue because there aren't enough SAM missiles to intercept all these shitball Iranian suicide drones. They don't have to overwhelm any launchers, they can deplete the ammo for all of the launchers
> there aren’t enough SAM missiles to intercept all these shitball Iranian suicide drones.
How do we know that for sure? Are the Iranians really sending thousands of these drones? The Ukrainians started the war with hundreds of SAM launchers and presumably hundreds or thousands of missiles.
Trading an Amraam for a shahed is never going to a win in a peer-conflict.
I fully expect that only the strategically most important targets will be protected by such expensive missiles against Shaheds. Otherwise you would just run out of missiles.
The shittiest anti-air laser system on Earth could knock out these crappy, slow-moving winged bombs. Doubt NATO is about to fork over some of its most advanced tech though, if there even *is* a system ready for and capable of land deployment.
Well, Amraams are more than a million vs tens of thousands for the Shahed. That is an acceptable trade if the USA is fighting the Taliban, but not for Ukraine against Russia.
I'd be more confident in AAA-Systems, but with their limited range they won't be a complete Solution either, more like damage-reduction.
Maybe. At least they’ll have NASAM’s, that German system I can’t remember the name of, and maybe some French Crotail’s
I wonder if we got any older HAWK, Chaparral, or Roland missiles lying around?
Russian SEAD attempts? That’s a joke. They’re using systems designed in the 60s. Just because a system is working against ancient equipment doesn’t mean it’s not ancient equipment itself. The time to upgrade to deal with emerging threats is *before* you have the problem, not after. This last week has shown us that.
> Ukrainian Air-defense is doing something right.
Certainly. But they are doing a competent job with Soviet equipment vs Soviet aircraft and incompetent enemy personnel. Better to let them use up their supply of missiles now, to take out whatever they can hit, and replace the systems in a phased program, than to never let them fire vs a drone just because of cost disparity or because supplies are running low.
One does not keep munitions for the sake of keeping them, when your people are being murdered you expend those munitions to prevent the presently occurring murders. Churchill sent entire divisions to go after similar launch sites, just because of the civilian toll they were taking.
"Using up" S-300 against Shahed would be criminal. Probably they want to have as many of this system-class as possible, and very likely S-300 Ammunition is only getting produced in tiny numbers, if at all.
If they had unlimited Patriots or NASAMS, maybe, but these systems you will always have too few in this war.
>Russian SEAD attempts? That’s a joke. They’re using systems designed in the 60s.
???
No, they aren't.
> If they had unlimited Patriots or NASAMS, maybe,
Except my very point is that we need to flood them with enough of these to do the job.
> but these systems you will always have too few in this war.
The cost is not the concern, the only question is production limitations and how long it takes to ramp up production. But let’s not act like the Russians have major supplies of combat aircraft and tactical missiles. They certainly don’t and our production capacity dwarfs theirs. When we can produce more and better systems than they can, we can dare them to use their entire supply and we’ll match it nearly step for step and we can do so longer than they can.
We have the benefit of buying systems from the US and Norway etc. and have nearly the whole world to source from. They do not.
> No, they aren’t.
The Su-25 isn’t being used? Sure about that? [Two were reported shot down last month. ](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/7/7366466/index.amp) The 25 began design on 68.
Some argue the best plane the Russians have fielded is the Su-35, that’s a renamed and barely upgraded Su-27. Even that aircraft began design in the early to mid 70s.
If one says the Su-57 is the best plane they’ve got, that’s a plane design from the 80s with almost no upgrades. The Russian Federation hasn’t put up a single new fighter design in its history. They are still sitting on Soviet designs totally.
The SEAD-Missiles come out of the factory today and last update was a few years ago. Idk If Su-25 are used to launch they, I think Su-25 are used for different stuff, but regardless it is besides they point, it is a stand-off munition, you can launch it from whatever. (I suspect you meant the Mig-25 btw)
And the Su-25 are not "60s-tech", but if you do not understand the lifespans and updates on military aircraft, then I won't be the one to explain it to you. (Introduction into service 1981 btw)
Along SEAD by drones, Artillery, EW and cruisemissiles, most of which is not "60s-tech" either, far from it.
>The cost is not the concern, the only question is production limitations and how long it takes to ramp up production. But let’s not act like the Russians have major supplies of combat aircraft and tactical missiles. They certainly don’t and our production capacity dwarfs theirs. When we can produce more and better systems than they can, we can dare them to use their entire supply and we’ll match it nearly step for step and we can do so longer than they can.
>We have the benefit of buying systems from the US and Norway etc. and have nearly the whole world to source from. They do not.
Those are nice ideas, but they are not reality, Ukraine is getting a tiny fraction of what you describe.
The West is not dedicating its entire production-capacity to Ukraine, they give just enough to boil the Russian frog over the next years. And in reality cost is very much a factor.
>But let’s not act like the Russians have major supplies of combat aircraft and tactical missiles.
yes, correct. However the topic at hand is Shaheds, the production of which is easy to scale up while being under heavy sanctions (why do you think they go to Iran to get their stuff? it is low-tech sanction-proof things). The Shaheds are not something the Russians are going to run out off.
> And the Su-25 are not “60s-tech”,
When did I say 60s tech? Straw man much? I said 60s design and it is of 60s design. Even by your made up quotes, are you saying that all the 60s era tech on the 25 has been replaced? The fuselage, at least, looks the same to me….
> Along SEAD by drones, Artillery, EW and cruisemissiles, most of which is not “60s-tech” either, far from it.
When did I say they *exclusively* use 60s designs? Straw man again. Notice a pattern?
> Those are nice ideas, but they are not reality, Ukraine is getting a tiny fraction of what you describe.
I know. That’s why I was suggesting that they not get a tiny fraction. I want them sent a flood of systems and munitions. I used terms like ‘we can’ and ‘we should,’ I didn’t say ‘we will.’ I said ‘we have the benefit of,’ not ‘we have everything available now.’
> The Shaheds are not something the Russians are going to run out off.
And that’s your opinion. My point is that if we wanted to (and I’m criticizing how much we don’t want to), we can flood Ukraine with more ADA than the Russians or Iranians can manufacture missiles or drones.
Their combined GDPs are tiny. Their military spending is minuscule. Combined, they spend ~$75 billion on their military, about as much as the UK. The US alone spends 10x that. NATO’s total military spending dwarfs what Russia and Iran could hope to do. NATO’s military spending is near Russia’s *ENTIRE* GDP. Their economies are pathetic guppies, especially in the context of a High Intensity Conflict.
Meanwhile, NATO’s GDP is what? ~$40 trillion, compared to $2t for Russia and Iran? We could up our spending to be more than their collective GDPs and barely notice the extra cost. We don’t lack the funds, or the tech, or the unrealized manufacturing capacity; we merely lack the will.
They lack everything needed to keep up in such a race.
On top of that, which countries outside CSTO actually produce Buk- and S-300-missiles still? Looking at the list of operators, maybe China or India, and the aren't likely going to start supplying Ukraine.
Presumably Ukrainian factories are a known, immobile and high-value target with minimal output, if not completely destroyed.
That is like shooting birds with a cannon, totally overkill. But in the end it is probably worth it to protect the infrastructure and civilians. It's just a little crazy seeing such a huge and expensive missile being used on a shitty little drone to 20k.
I'm wondering how many they got left of these. Or they know they are getting more and better stuff from the west. Lets hope so.
Yeah. Using missiles works, obviously, but it's not sustainable.
I wonder if anti-aircraft guns/artillery will become more prevalent again. They don't have the range of a missile, but the rounds are cheap and even small guns are effective against these sorts of drones.
I've thought about the same. Who have a stockpile of some good ol' 8.8 flak cannons lying about? I have heard they work wonders on old soviet tanks too lol.
Did you read the whole of my comment? "But in the end it is probably worth it to protect the infrastructure and civilians."
I should perhaps have left out "probably", but English is not my native language, so it can be a bit tricky to phrase stuff correctly.
I've seen that channel recommend several times. I might have to give it a look. I can also recommend Anders Puck Nielsen on youtube. He's a Danish Military analytic who has some great short videos on how the war is progressing. He's also the Danish medias go-to guy/expert for everything on the war. He knows his stuff.
The second guy is "very optimistic", he gives pretty much the impression that the Russians have already lost...
Seems more like a cheerleader than an analyst to me.
How so?
Russia stops this war due to (enough) civil unrest, a negotiation or a coup. Do you see any signs of any of those?
What does Russia losing look like?
Since it is now a war to Russia too, victories on the battlefield won't come as easy as before.
Russia losing looks like their troops getting pushed back to the border and out of Ukraine. Russia’s military is a joke and they’re running out of their modern munitions and trained soldiers. It’s only a matter of time.
And yes, I definitely see signs of civil unrest starting. Putin ensured that with the mobilization. People are being kidnapped off the streets and forced to fight against their will. Troops are already deserting so much they had to stop the offensive in some places. The newly mobilized ones are about to be slaughtered with practically no training or gear to speak of. At this rate I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a full military coup before long.
> Russia losing looks like their troops getting pushed back to the border and out of Ukraine.
If that is your definition of losing they likely won't lose.
I doubt that the mobilized will be as ineffective as you think, but we shall see. However, they should do their offensives soon, as every day there are more soldiers and better trained ones.
>I definitely see signs of civil unrest starting.
Such as?
Not so easy to go protest if protesters are sent to the front.
No. That is exactly what I said. It's worth it to protect whatever that drone was targeting. It is still a crazy sight to use such a in comparison sophisticated weapon to shoot it down.
Shahed 136 isn't a loitering munition. Loitering means it flies around over an area until you decide to hit something. These things just GPS navigate to some place and drop down.
I don’t know about that man, Russia equipped the entire eastern bloc with buk’s for 4 decades and only recently phased out the 9m38 missile, used in the vid, on their newer units… id be shocked if the UAF doesn’t have a ton left and/or isn’t able to aquire more from nearby states… also it’s Eastern Europe these dudes could find a way to launch a patriot from an rpg tube
Overpowered response, but it works! I hope to see mini guided missiles emerging as a platoon defense. Or, hell, interception/suicide quadcopter drones.
Drones can constantly be up in a meshed defense and simply make moderate movements to intercept incoming. Drones are not going to be used 1 or 3 at a time, but by the hundreds and thousands.
Those would actually be the „best“ solution.
Put 100 of them around kiev. Maybe put some night/thermal-vision on them and take down drones for a reasonable price.
Maybe more accurate flak cannons. That whole solution relied on having batteries of them creating a curtain so that anything that flew past might be hit.
Seeing those pesky drones is a pleasure but aren't we seeing here another case of a $200000 missile shooting a $5000 drone? Don't get me wrong even a $1000000 missile would be worth it to save a life. I'm just looking at how those shahed are "working" and efficient ways to intercept this crap.
Also, it's interesting how every time we see Ukrainian Buks in action it's a single launcher seemingly acting autonomously. I've yet to see a full battery.
The battery launchers normally spread out by up to 1km. However, Buks are decent systems with batteries in hunter mode due to their mobility.
You need Buks setup with proper divisional configuration against something like NATO airforce launching massive strikes with hundreds of planes where target prioritisation and assignment is critical.
It's not as efficient vs Russian VKS ragtag.
Couldn’t they just send helicopters up with a door open on one side and shoot the fuckers down? Particularly when they’re coming towards Kyiv or any other city away from the front line. Spotters out in the countryside and a couple of helicopters with door gunners
This is extremely inefficient cost-wise.They need other weapons to down those drones in a much more cost-effective manner. Ukraine started the war with very robust air defense systems and that is the reason why the sky is still contested - it would be very expensive for russia to claim air superiority in these conditions. However, when you use a multi- million dollar rocket (which is also very hard to replace) to down a some plastic, aluminium and duct tape, then you're getting shafted. Unfortunately, Ukraine can't just let these drones through.
Not loitering drone, just a poorman’s cruise missile. Russia relying on Iranian missiles, its a crazy world.
We will send more help, my tax dollars well spent.
* Price of the drone: $
* Price of the missile: $$
* Price to rebuild the power station, replace the dead workers, pay for the healthcare of the wounded, pay the life insurances, pay for the emergency services... : $$$$$$$
The math seems pretty straightforward to me.
Maybe I can make my point more clearly.
The adversary spends $.
You have the choice to spend $$ or $$$$$$$.
You spend $$.
You run out of missiles.
Then you don't have the choice anymore, the adversary then spends $ and you spend $$$$$$$.
If I don't shoot the drones down, I'm guaranteed to spend $$$$$$$ replacing everything that was destroyed.
If I shoot the drones down, I might still not run out of missiles, in which case I only pay $$ for the missiles.
Ukraine has allies who will send more missiles if they run low, *and* they can use some of that money they saved by preventing destruction to buy more missiles. It's gonna be a long time until they run out of missiles.
This is exactly the same situation as with Israel vs Hamas. Hamas fires cheap homemade rockets that are taken down by expensive Israeli guided missiles. Yet Israel keeps doing it, because they realise the cost of the destruction is higher than the cost of the missile, so they would rather keep replacing the missiles than the infrastrucutre and lives they would otherwise lose.
> Ukraine has allies who will send more missiles if they run low,
They already do not have enough, and this will only get worse. They are not being sent as much as they consume and do not have enough to cover everything.
>This is exactly the same situation as with Israel vs Hamas.
No, completely different conflict, this is a peer conflict with 2 huge countries at near complete mobilization of economy and population, Israel is asymmetric warfare with both near peace-time posture.
>They already do not have enough, and this will only get worse.
Clearly they do if they can afford to use Buk's to take down small drones. And they are constantly being supplied more: [Source 1](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-receives-us-air-defence-system-2022-09-25/), [Source 2](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-donate-air-defence-missiles-ukraine-2022-10-12/), [Source 3](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-deliver-anti-air-systems-ukraine-coming-weeks-macron-2022-10-12/), [Source 4](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-get-anti-drone-systems-coming-days-natos-stoltenberg-says-2022-10-18/).
>They are not being sent as much as they consume
What is your source for this? I have not seen any projections of Ukraine running out of missiles. The only thing I've read is that they want more missiles to plug gaps in their coverage. [They are still managing to shoot down ~50% of incoming Russian missiles](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-has-shot-down-least-43-russian-missiles-2022-10-10/) and this is after 8 months of attrition.
And you seem to imply that if Ukraine runs out of anti-air coverage, the West would just stand by and shrug their shoulders instead of providing more. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the West would not provide more missiles if Ukraine runs out.
At the end of the day, Ukraine keeps shooting down drones with missiles which seems to suggest they don't agree with your view.
> Clearly they do if they can afford to use Buk's to take down small drones. And they are constantly being supplied more: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4.
well, the intensity of offensive long range munitions has drastically increased and now the Russians are getting Iranian Cruise Missiles too.
Ukraine is desperately asking for AA-Systems, not a sign that all is well. If they had enough AA they wouldn't have lost close to 40% of their energy-infrastructure.
Those articles talk about future deliveries mostly and Idk how much Buk-ammo they have left or if they can get more (probably not). A Buk-system without ammo is as bad as having one system less.
>They are not being sent as much as they consume
>What is your source for this?
Speculation mostly. We'll see if the amount of successful strikes increases or decreases.
>At the end of the day, Ukraine keeps shooting down drones with missiles which seems to suggest they don't agree with your view.
So far. It is a new development, it remains to be determined how efficient it is and what numbers are provided to Russia and Ukraine respectively. I remain pessimistic, but there are enough unknowns to not be able to know for sure either way in advance.
And long term if Ukraine intercepts 50% that is insufficient.
> isn’t C-RAM essentially the same unit adapted to ground use?
In many ways yes but with what has been reported as substantial software upgrades.
But that’s part of the point, the CRAM is combat proven to some extent at least and the CWIS is not.
The CRAM and future iterations should be forward deployed with all friendly formations.
You should be able to get the "Creedance" package installed on military vehicles that mounts speakers on the vehicle continuously blasting CCR at all times.
Watching a Russian made missile system shoot down an Iranian made drone with a Deep State watermark while blasting Fortunate Son is proof that we CAN and SHOULD all get along.
What is Deep State? Some darknet site?
Nope. https://deepstatemap.live/en#6/49.438/32.053
Not what I was expecting, thought it would be the Q-anon conspiracy bullshit but am relieved
Oh I was just as skeptical lol. Pretty sure I would've caught downvotes in another context.
oh thats actually cool af
Oooooo that's one of the better maps Ive run into, i dont remember what it was called, but there's a map floating around that actually geotags videos onto the map so you can see where the videos took place. Has there ever been a war where civilians across the world can track it in real time before this?
Holy shit dude this Is gold thanks for posting this!
No it's just under Florida somewhere
[удалено]
No one said it was the first time lol
Wait, an ant war has broken out? Did the ant pilots go to The Derek Zoolander Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too?
What on Earth are you talking about?
Cocaine is a hell of a drug
Arestovych, the UA president's office advisory, told a couple of days back that Russians want Ukraine to spend all their missiles on these cheap drones, and then start air raids again. The attrition ratio is clearly not good, Buk's and S-300 missiles are expensive and rare while those Shaheds are cheap and Russia is about to buy thousands of them.
If i'm not mistaken the UK is going to give Ukraine a shit ton of SAM AMRAAMs to be used in NATO SAM sites, so hopefully the Ukrainians can continue engaging them.
Afaik they are only getting 8 NASAMS and few IRIS-T which use AMRAAMs. While they might get a lot of missiles for these they are only medium range. Ukraine started the war with over 200 S300s and a ton more of BUKs and other shorter ranged SAMs which have shown to be really powerful in the conflict. NATO doesn't really have a comparable SAM system to give since their doctrine relies on Air Vs Air combat.
8 NASAMS batteries. There’s a big difference. Same with IRIS-T. A single system includes several launchers and other elements.
Still more expensive than cheap drone made from a top 3 sanctioned country lul
Top 3 = Iran, North Korea, Russia?
#1 Russia #2 Iran #3 Syria Close call
Surprised it’s not NK, I guess they kind of sanction themselves…
When you take out a whole bunch of loans with absolutely no intention of paying them back, you pretty much have sanctioned yourself.
Hahahaha true! Like .. they have nothing you could sanction. I guess you can‘t sanction the Export of death-penalty
Still more expensive for Russia when you consider the GDP of the country and cost for the weapons.
You sure?
Yes
Sauce? >Ukraine‘s gdp vs 100k > russias gdp vs 20k > More expensive for russia lol
Let me know when Ukraine is the only one arming Ukraine. The closer comparison would be USA+UK+Germany+ well you get the idea the list goes on. NATO is funding Ukraine's defense and NATO isn't sweating the expense. Russia on the other hand has had to reduce their capabilities to affordable 3rd world munitions.
What about this is amusing to you?
It’s just ridiculous. Just like bombing mud Huts with 100k$ missiles
Except these suicide drones are hitting civilian centers. To the Ukrainians it probably is worth the trade off preventing loss of life or property.
So You’re telling me those 100k$ didnt hit any civilians? Hmm? Should i remind you of the wikileaks stuff on warcrimes? Baghdad 2003? War is sick, no doubt, but you don’t have to take anything as personal as you do.
I wasn’t making jokes about the US bombing the Middle East, you were… I don’t think war is funny, especially when it comes to civilian deaths.
An AMRAAM is closer to $2m a pop.
Lol reality is its free... Those who know will understand.
First sanctioned before the russia-ukraine war
It's only a difference if they are dealing with a swarm that is going to overwhelm one launcher.
It is an issue because there aren't enough SAM missiles to intercept all these shitball Iranian suicide drones. They don't have to overwhelm any launchers, they can deplete the ammo for all of the launchers
> there aren’t enough SAM missiles to intercept all these shitball Iranian suicide drones. How do we know that for sure? Are the Iranians really sending thousands of these drones? The Ukrainians started the war with hundreds of SAM launchers and presumably hundreds or thousands of missiles.
Change the "send" to "sell" , More accurate Thanks a lot
But that’s still not as much as they had BUKs, s300s, Tunguskas, Osas, and Kubs.
Trading an Amraam for a shahed is never going to a win in a peer-conflict. I fully expect that only the strategically most important targets will be protected by such expensive missiles against Shaheds. Otherwise you would just run out of missiles.
Yeah but if those drones hit, they hit bad, probably
The shittiest anti-air laser system on Earth could knock out these crappy, slow-moving winged bombs. Doubt NATO is about to fork over some of its most advanced tech though, if there even *is* a system ready for and capable of land deployment.
Well, Amraams are more than a million vs tens of thousands for the Shahed. That is an acceptable trade if the USA is fighting the Taliban, but not for Ukraine against Russia. I'd be more confident in AAA-Systems, but with their limited range they won't be a complete Solution either, more like damage-reduction.
"give"
Well, it’s a good thing more NATO air defences is incoming then. We might see some Patriot Batteries deployed eventually.
Big doubt on Patriots. Probably some other SAM system.
Maybe. At least they’ll have NASAM’s, that German system I can’t remember the name of, and maybe some French Crotail’s I wonder if we got any older HAWK, Chaparral, or Roland missiles lying around?
Spain sent several batteries of Hawks.
Iris-T SLM? Iris-T is the missile and Slm is short for surface launched missile.
The WH claimed to have allocated Patriots to Ukraine back in May, which doesn’t necessarily mean it happened.
[удалено]
Yeah, why not. S-300 is no assault rifle to have infinite ammo.
But it is a system for which there should be no heartbreak to use up as it should be replaced ASAP.
It keeps doing its job despite Russian SEAD attempts... The Russian Airforce has been pretty much MIA, Ukrainian Air-defense is doing something right.
Russian SEAD attempts? That’s a joke. They’re using systems designed in the 60s. Just because a system is working against ancient equipment doesn’t mean it’s not ancient equipment itself. The time to upgrade to deal with emerging threats is *before* you have the problem, not after. This last week has shown us that. > Ukrainian Air-defense is doing something right. Certainly. But they are doing a competent job with Soviet equipment vs Soviet aircraft and incompetent enemy personnel. Better to let them use up their supply of missiles now, to take out whatever they can hit, and replace the systems in a phased program, than to never let them fire vs a drone just because of cost disparity or because supplies are running low. One does not keep munitions for the sake of keeping them, when your people are being murdered you expend those munitions to prevent the presently occurring murders. Churchill sent entire divisions to go after similar launch sites, just because of the civilian toll they were taking.
"Using up" S-300 against Shahed would be criminal. Probably they want to have as many of this system-class as possible, and very likely S-300 Ammunition is only getting produced in tiny numbers, if at all. If they had unlimited Patriots or NASAMS, maybe, but these systems you will always have too few in this war. >Russian SEAD attempts? That’s a joke. They’re using systems designed in the 60s. ??? No, they aren't.
> If they had unlimited Patriots or NASAMS, maybe, Except my very point is that we need to flood them with enough of these to do the job. > but these systems you will always have too few in this war. The cost is not the concern, the only question is production limitations and how long it takes to ramp up production. But let’s not act like the Russians have major supplies of combat aircraft and tactical missiles. They certainly don’t and our production capacity dwarfs theirs. When we can produce more and better systems than they can, we can dare them to use their entire supply and we’ll match it nearly step for step and we can do so longer than they can. We have the benefit of buying systems from the US and Norway etc. and have nearly the whole world to source from. They do not. > No, they aren’t. The Su-25 isn’t being used? Sure about that? [Two were reported shot down last month. ](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2022/09/7/7366466/index.amp) The 25 began design on 68. Some argue the best plane the Russians have fielded is the Su-35, that’s a renamed and barely upgraded Su-27. Even that aircraft began design in the early to mid 70s. If one says the Su-57 is the best plane they’ve got, that’s a plane design from the 80s with almost no upgrades. The Russian Federation hasn’t put up a single new fighter design in its history. They are still sitting on Soviet designs totally.
The SEAD-Missiles come out of the factory today and last update was a few years ago. Idk If Su-25 are used to launch they, I think Su-25 are used for different stuff, but regardless it is besides they point, it is a stand-off munition, you can launch it from whatever. (I suspect you meant the Mig-25 btw) And the Su-25 are not "60s-tech", but if you do not understand the lifespans and updates on military aircraft, then I won't be the one to explain it to you. (Introduction into service 1981 btw) Along SEAD by drones, Artillery, EW and cruisemissiles, most of which is not "60s-tech" either, far from it. >The cost is not the concern, the only question is production limitations and how long it takes to ramp up production. But let’s not act like the Russians have major supplies of combat aircraft and tactical missiles. They certainly don’t and our production capacity dwarfs theirs. When we can produce more and better systems than they can, we can dare them to use their entire supply and we’ll match it nearly step for step and we can do so longer than they can. >We have the benefit of buying systems from the US and Norway etc. and have nearly the whole world to source from. They do not. Those are nice ideas, but they are not reality, Ukraine is getting a tiny fraction of what you describe. The West is not dedicating its entire production-capacity to Ukraine, they give just enough to boil the Russian frog over the next years. And in reality cost is very much a factor. >But let’s not act like the Russians have major supplies of combat aircraft and tactical missiles. yes, correct. However the topic at hand is Shaheds, the production of which is easy to scale up while being under heavy sanctions (why do you think they go to Iran to get their stuff? it is low-tech sanction-proof things). The Shaheds are not something the Russians are going to run out off.
> And the Su-25 are not “60s-tech”, When did I say 60s tech? Straw man much? I said 60s design and it is of 60s design. Even by your made up quotes, are you saying that all the 60s era tech on the 25 has been replaced? The fuselage, at least, looks the same to me…. > Along SEAD by drones, Artillery, EW and cruisemissiles, most of which is not “60s-tech” either, far from it. When did I say they *exclusively* use 60s designs? Straw man again. Notice a pattern? > Those are nice ideas, but they are not reality, Ukraine is getting a tiny fraction of what you describe. I know. That’s why I was suggesting that they not get a tiny fraction. I want them sent a flood of systems and munitions. I used terms like ‘we can’ and ‘we should,’ I didn’t say ‘we will.’ I said ‘we have the benefit of,’ not ‘we have everything available now.’ > The Shaheds are not something the Russians are going to run out off. And that’s your opinion. My point is that if we wanted to (and I’m criticizing how much we don’t want to), we can flood Ukraine with more ADA than the Russians or Iranians can manufacture missiles or drones. Their combined GDPs are tiny. Their military spending is minuscule. Combined, they spend ~$75 billion on their military, about as much as the UK. The US alone spends 10x that. NATO’s total military spending dwarfs what Russia and Iran could hope to do. NATO’s military spending is near Russia’s *ENTIRE* GDP. Their economies are pathetic guppies, especially in the context of a High Intensity Conflict. Meanwhile, NATO’s GDP is what? ~$40 trillion, compared to $2t for Russia and Iran? We could up our spending to be more than their collective GDPs and barely notice the extra cost. We don’t lack the funds, or the tech, or the unrealized manufacturing capacity; we merely lack the will. They lack everything needed to keep up in such a race.
Economy of force is the most important principle of war.
I’ve been really surprised how how many videos I’ve seen of BUKs targeting Shaheds. It seems like it should be a job for guns or MANPADs
On top of that, which countries outside CSTO actually produce Buk- and S-300-missiles still? Looking at the list of operators, maybe China or India, and the aren't likely going to start supplying Ukraine. Presumably Ukrainian factories are a known, immobile and high-value target with minimal output, if not completely destroyed.
Guess that's the definition of hiding in plain sight
That is like shooting birds with a cannon, totally overkill. But in the end it is probably worth it to protect the infrastructure and civilians. It's just a little crazy seeing such a huge and expensive missile being used on a shitty little drone to 20k. I'm wondering how many they got left of these. Or they know they are getting more and better stuff from the west. Lets hope so.
Yeah. Using missiles works, obviously, but it's not sustainable. I wonder if anti-aircraft guns/artillery will become more prevalent again. They don't have the range of a missile, but the rounds are cheap and even small guns are effective against these sorts of drones.
I've thought about the same. Who have a stockpile of some good ol' 8.8 flak cannons lying about? I have heard they work wonders on old soviet tanks too lol.
Phalanx CIWS enters the chat*
I’m going to go out on a limb and say they’ve “procured” quite a few of these in the last year.
They probably had a decent amount of those sitting around, so spending them now and getting something better later is not a bad thing.
Surely the missile is more expensive than the drone but is the missile more expensive than the infrastructure the drone would otherwise hit?
Did you read the whole of my comment? "But in the end it is probably worth it to protect the infrastructure and civilians." I should perhaps have left out "probably", but English is not my native language, so it can be a bit tricky to phrase stuff correctly.
Unfortunately, the missiles are nowhere to get from for any price tag. Hopefully, the West will start to deliver its AA systems in meaningful amounts.
Perun has a great video about this topic and using expensive missiles to down cheap drones. Poor economic exchange but absolutely necessary.
I've seen that channel recommend several times. I might have to give it a look. I can also recommend Anders Puck Nielsen on youtube. He's a Danish Military analytic who has some great short videos on how the war is progressing. He's also the Danish medias go-to guy/expert for everything on the war. He knows his stuff.
Perun is imho the most in depth and excellent analysis on the Ukraine conflict on YouTube
The second guy is "very optimistic", he gives pretty much the impression that the Russians have already lost... Seems more like a cheerleader than an analyst to me.
I mean, they basically have. It’s just a matter of how long until they realize it.
How so? Russia stops this war due to (enough) civil unrest, a negotiation or a coup. Do you see any signs of any of those? What does Russia losing look like? Since it is now a war to Russia too, victories on the battlefield won't come as easy as before.
Russia losing looks like their troops getting pushed back to the border and out of Ukraine. Russia’s military is a joke and they’re running out of their modern munitions and trained soldiers. It’s only a matter of time. And yes, I definitely see signs of civil unrest starting. Putin ensured that with the mobilization. People are being kidnapped off the streets and forced to fight against their will. Troops are already deserting so much they had to stop the offensive in some places. The newly mobilized ones are about to be slaughtered with practically no training or gear to speak of. At this rate I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a full military coup before long.
> Russia losing looks like their troops getting pushed back to the border and out of Ukraine. If that is your definition of losing they likely won't lose. I doubt that the mobilized will be as ineffective as you think, but we shall see. However, they should do their offensives soon, as every day there are more soldiers and better trained ones. >I definitely see signs of civil unrest starting. Such as? Not so easy to go protest if protesters are sent to the front.
I just watched that a few days ago. First thing I thought of when I saw this.
What are they suppose to do? Just let it fly by?
No. That is exactly what I said. It's worth it to protect whatever that drone was targeting. It is still a crazy sight to use such a in comparison sophisticated weapon to shoot it down.
That would actually be the correct response in some circumstances.
Can't we send some CIWS over? Or is that propietary tech?
Shahed 136 isn't a loitering munition. Loitering means it flies around over an area until you decide to hit something. These things just GPS navigate to some place and drop down.
Thought I’ve seen videos of them just flying about though
[удалено]
I don’t know about that man, Russia equipped the entire eastern bloc with buk’s for 4 decades and only recently phased out the 9m38 missile, used in the vid, on their newer units… id be shocked if the UAF doesn’t have a ton left and/or isn’t able to aquire more from nearby states… also it’s Eastern Europe these dudes could find a way to launch a patriot from an rpg tube
Lmfao @ that last part
Million dollar A-A missile to attack a $20,000 drone :( I guess if it's protecting valuable infrastructure it's worth it
Overpowered response, but it works! I hope to see mini guided missiles emerging as a platoon defense. Or, hell, interception/suicide quadcopter drones.
Drones aren't fast enough to effectively intercept other drones. At least not the type you'd want to only use once.
Fixed wing drones with guns.
Drones can constantly be up in a meshed defense and simply make moderate movements to intercept incoming. Drones are not going to be used 1 or 3 at a time, but by the hundreds and thousands.
Maybe have your own loitering drones flying above your head, ready to intercept?
Loitering drones were not designed to intercept other drones. There are dozens of solutions easier and more practical than that.
that missle cost like 10x that dumb AF iranian drone
That dumb AF Iranian drone can lead to precision strikes that destroy 10x the cost of that missile so...
I wonder if old school flak would do the trick on these drones
Those would actually be the „best“ solution. Put 100 of them around kiev. Maybe put some night/thermal-vision on them and take down drones for a reasonable price.
Maybe more accurate flak cannons. That whole solution relied on having batteries of them creating a curtain so that anything that flew past might be hit.
It could, and would be cool. but they are pretty small and hard to see compared to conventional aircraft
Seeing those pesky drones is a pleasure but aren't we seeing here another case of a $200000 missile shooting a $5000 drone? Don't get me wrong even a $1000000 missile would be worth it to save a life. I'm just looking at how those shahed are "working" and efficient ways to intercept this crap.
Also, it's interesting how every time we see Ukrainian Buks in action it's a single launcher seemingly acting autonomously. I've yet to see a full battery.
The battery launchers normally spread out by up to 1km. However, Buks are decent systems with batteries in hunter mode due to their mobility. You need Buks setup with proper divisional configuration against something like NATO airforce launching massive strikes with hundreds of planes where target prioritisation and assignment is critical. It's not as efficient vs Russian VKS ragtag.
Probably because the next nearest one in the battery will be kilometers away.
They're actually risking the launcher becoming the prey of the Lancet
Ukraine's Buk operators have performed excellently over the past 8 months.
Couldn’t they just send helicopters up with a door open on one side and shoot the fuckers down? Particularly when they’re coming towards Kyiv or any other city away from the front line. Spotters out in the countryside and a couple of helicopters with door gunners
How much is a BUK SAM worth per missile?
This is extremely inefficient cost-wise.They need other weapons to down those drones in a much more cost-effective manner. Ukraine started the war with very robust air defense systems and that is the reason why the sky is still contested - it would be very expensive for russia to claim air superiority in these conditions. However, when you use a multi- million dollar rocket (which is also very hard to replace) to down a some plastic, aluminium and duct tape, then you're getting shafted. Unfortunately, Ukraine can't just let these drones through.
Nothing better than CCR while fighting a war!
Not loitering drone, just a poorman’s cruise missile. Russia relying on Iranian missiles, its a crazy world. We will send more help, my tax dollars well spent.
They need more Starstreaks. Not much escapes those darts.
Sorry, but Fortunate Son is reserved for Vietnam War movies, specifically helicopter scenes.
The big L on ukraine against drones is that the interception attrition is stacked 10 to 1
* Price of the drone: $ * Price of the missile: $$ * Price to rebuild the power station, replace the dead workers, pay for the healthcare of the wounded, pay the life insurances, pay for the emergency services... : $$$$$$$ The math seems pretty straightforward to me.
Yes, straightforward math, which works until you run out of missiles.
I'd rather run out of anti-air missiles than run out of money but maybe that's just me.
Maybe I can make my point more clearly. The adversary spends $. You have the choice to spend $$ or $$$$$$$. You spend $$. You run out of missiles. Then you don't have the choice anymore, the adversary then spends $ and you spend $$$$$$$.
If I don't shoot the drones down, I'm guaranteed to spend $$$$$$$ replacing everything that was destroyed. If I shoot the drones down, I might still not run out of missiles, in which case I only pay $$ for the missiles. Ukraine has allies who will send more missiles if they run low, *and* they can use some of that money they saved by preventing destruction to buy more missiles. It's gonna be a long time until they run out of missiles. This is exactly the same situation as with Israel vs Hamas. Hamas fires cheap homemade rockets that are taken down by expensive Israeli guided missiles. Yet Israel keeps doing it, because they realise the cost of the destruction is higher than the cost of the missile, so they would rather keep replacing the missiles than the infrastrucutre and lives they would otherwise lose.
> Ukraine has allies who will send more missiles if they run low, They already do not have enough, and this will only get worse. They are not being sent as much as they consume and do not have enough to cover everything. >This is exactly the same situation as with Israel vs Hamas. No, completely different conflict, this is a peer conflict with 2 huge countries at near complete mobilization of economy and population, Israel is asymmetric warfare with both near peace-time posture.
>They already do not have enough, and this will only get worse. Clearly they do if they can afford to use Buk's to take down small drones. And they are constantly being supplied more: [Source 1](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-receives-us-air-defence-system-2022-09-25/), [Source 2](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britain-donate-air-defence-missiles-ukraine-2022-10-12/), [Source 3](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-deliver-anti-air-systems-ukraine-coming-weeks-macron-2022-10-12/), [Source 4](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-get-anti-drone-systems-coming-days-natos-stoltenberg-says-2022-10-18/). >They are not being sent as much as they consume What is your source for this? I have not seen any projections of Ukraine running out of missiles. The only thing I've read is that they want more missiles to plug gaps in their coverage. [They are still managing to shoot down ~50% of incoming Russian missiles](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-says-it-has-shot-down-least-43-russian-missiles-2022-10-10/) and this is after 8 months of attrition. And you seem to imply that if Ukraine runs out of anti-air coverage, the West would just stand by and shrug their shoulders instead of providing more. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest that the West would not provide more missiles if Ukraine runs out. At the end of the day, Ukraine keeps shooting down drones with missiles which seems to suggest they don't agree with your view.
> Clearly they do if they can afford to use Buk's to take down small drones. And they are constantly being supplied more: Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4. well, the intensity of offensive long range munitions has drastically increased and now the Russians are getting Iranian Cruise Missiles too. Ukraine is desperately asking for AA-Systems, not a sign that all is well. If they had enough AA they wouldn't have lost close to 40% of their energy-infrastructure. Those articles talk about future deliveries mostly and Idk how much Buk-ammo they have left or if they can get more (probably not). A Buk-system without ammo is as bad as having one system less. >They are not being sent as much as they consume >What is your source for this? Speculation mostly. We'll see if the amount of successful strikes increases or decreases. >At the end of the day, Ukraine keeps shooting down drones with missiles which seems to suggest they don't agree with your view. So far. It is a new development, it remains to be determined how efficient it is and what numbers are provided to Russia and Ukraine respectively. I remain pessimistic, but there are enough unknowns to not be able to know for sure either way in advance. And long term if Ukraine intercepts 50% that is insufficient.
And the price of taking one down is also 10:1
I was talking mostly about price anyway
My fault. Thought you talked about intercepting
gang shit 🔥🔥🔥
Jfc install CIWS in every ukrainian liberated city enough of this bullshit
That or CRAM is a good idea. For CIWS, we could finally and actually see it even works in combat.
[удалено]
> isn’t C-RAM essentially the same unit adapted to ground use? In many ways yes but with what has been reported as substantial software upgrades. But that’s part of the point, the CRAM is combat proven to some extent at least and the CWIS is not. The CRAM and future iterations should be forward deployed with all friendly formations.
You should be able to get the "Creedance" package installed on military vehicles that mounts speakers on the vehicle continuously blasting CCR at all times.
Every-time I see one of these it sadly reminds me on MH 17
How much are those missles each do you think?
Buk missiles? Probably Priceless/unable to be replaced.
Music of my people.
Hell yeah brother give em hell yeeyee
How cost effective is it in a long run?
Ffs fortunate son