8 ms·

The non-ballistic variety that Russia claimed was unstoppable has been stopped several time in the past couple weeks now that Ukraine has Patriot systems. Seems

The non-ballistic variety that Russia claimed was unstoppable has been stopped several time in the past couple weeks now that Ukraine has Patriot systems. Seems like they’re not really a big deal at all.

up2isomorphism 3y ago
What’s the point of reading a highly informative article written by a domain expert and then simply state your opinion by laying out wrong facts?
- the_af 3y ago
  Agreed. And the article goes in great detail of why a non-ballistic hypersonic projectile is so difficult to stop -- everything is going at extreme speeds and there's little to no time to maneuver, so if it deviates from the predicted trajectory you cannot intercept it at all. Why ignore all of the article? If a hypersonic missile can be intercepted by a Patriot, then it stands to reason it wasn't truly maneuverable, i.e. it was ballistic!
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  The article begins by referring to Russia using Hypersonic missiles against Ukraine, and then goes into detail about what defenses are necessary to defend against these weapons. It’s a good article. But the reality is that the Russian missiles making headlines don’t meet the specs of the article. Ukraine is shooting them down just fine using decades old technology.
  - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
    > Ukraine is shooting them down just fine using decades old technology. It is not publicly known whether this is true. The Ukrainians claim they shot down 6 of 6 Kinzhal missiles over Kiev in one night with a Patriot battery. In the available videos of the event, all that can be seen is that a few dozen air defense missiles were fired, and that something got through and struck the general location where the air defense battery was. A very healthy dose of skepticism is warranted about claims made in wartime by interested parties.
    - fauxpause_ 3y ago
      Russia arresting the Kinzhal developers for treason (read: failure) tells you all you need to know. Note also that they purposefully forbid videos of air defenses to avoid showing where air defenses are. At least one Kinzhal was confirmed shot down earlier before the wave of 6 or so.
      - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
        Another view would say that the explosion in the video, where the air-defense battery appeared to be, demonstrates that the claim about all Kinzhals being intercepted was not truthful. The initial claim was that the Patriot battery was undamaged, but later it was admitted that the battery was at least partially damaged. It seems that the full truth is not being told, possibly by both sides. > Note also that they purposefully forbid videos of air defenses to avoid showing where air defenses are. This has not prevented videos from leaking, as in this case. > At least one Kinzhal was confirmed shot down earlier before the wave of 6 or so. Independently confirmed, or claimed? This gets to my initial point, that one should be extremely skeptical about unverifiable claims made by both sides.
        fauxpause_ 3y ago
        Shrug. The Kremlin loudly arresting the Kinzhal developers for treason after the Kinzhals get shot down suggests a clear narrative to me about who is telling the truth. The best case you can make for Russia is that the Kinzhal developers actually did commit treason but in a way that was unrelated to the Kinzhal missiles not being effective which is… laughable
        the_af 3y ago
        Ukraine is also arresting people who film AA incidents, so who cares. The governments of both countries are being "selective" about the truth and imposing censorship by force. Which makes sense at times of war! Nobody here should take anything released by the involved parties (and their sponsors) as gospel. It's war. War is about deception.
  - the_af 3y ago
    > The article begins by referring to Russia using Hypersonic missiles against Ukraine, and then goes into detail about what defenses are necessary to defend against these weapons. The article explicitly states, one paragraph later than the beginning, that "about half of that is just plain wrong". The author also explains the hypersonic missiles are nothing new, that they are old tech, and that the real threat would be maneuverable hypersonic missiles, which the Khinzal is not. The Khinzal is ballistic. So when the author writes of the threat of maneuverable hypersonics, and you say "The non-ballistic variety that Russia claimed was unstoppable [...]", you are both speaking of different kinds of weapons with different capabilities. The Khinzal is old tech for which there are counters. The author is speaking of newer tech for which there are fewer counters.
    - fauxpause_ 3y ago
      I don’t agree that the article makes this clear. The article states > These are specifically designed for ballistic threats, which are common, and their extreme effectiveness is precisely why Russia and China have invested in something else. And > Russia used hypersonic missiles against Ukraine” — alarming! The average member of the public, as well as many policymakers, now understand that these things are dangerous because they are just too fast to shoot down. Clearly something needs to be done… (sarcastic) It really ought to make clear explicitly in the article that the missiles it referred to in the beginning are NOT what it spends the rest of the article discussing. It confused me at least. Because, without doing further research, I assumed the Kinzhals must not be ballistic because they’re indirectly referenced in an article about maneuverable missiles!
      - the_af 3y ago
        Well, it says half of the opening paragraph is "just plain wrong". It doesn't mention the Khinzal by name, true.
        fauxpause_ 3y ago
        The is saying that it’s wrong that hypersonic are bad because they’re fast. It goes on to clarify why the new tech is bad. And, imo, implies that this includes the ones referenced in the beginning. But in reality it does not. But whatever. Semantics at this point.
- GuB-42 3y ago
  Not commenting on GP post, but it is an area where I would not trust domain experts. This kind of work is typically very classified and experts have clearances. Having a clearance mean you can't talk freely, the more you know, the less you can say. Ideally you say nothing at all about your work, but I know some of them will simply repeat what is found in newspapers when asked. The less accurate, the better. People without clearances, working on a domain that is tangential but not the domain itself are probably more reliable, as they don't know truths that cannot be told, but they know enough to make informed guesses. I take this article as informative but only for the general idea. The part about which country has what capabilities, I give absolutely no credence.
airgapstopgap 3y ago
Kinzhal is simply an air-launched 9K720 Iskander, though, and it was always known to be interceptible because its trajectory is deterministic. You just need good radars. No, hypersonics are a legitimate new development, Russia just deceptively brands some of its low-tech arsenal.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  I agree. But I don’t think the article makes that clear. In fact I think it strongly implies otherwise that the missiles being used against Ukraine are the scary maneuvering kind.
  - andrewflnr 3y ago
    When you say "they're not very scary", without mentioning that it's entirely due to dishonest marketing that "they" (the Russian "hypersonic weapons in Ukraine) are even in the conversation, you contribute to the confusion.
    - fauxpause_ 3y ago
      I guess? The article is the thing that introduces them as such and does not clarify to begin the problem, imo.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
credit_guy 3y ago
What Russia used were actually ballistic missiles. Here's the wikipedia description [1] The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (in Russian: Х-47М2 Кинжал, "Dagger", NATO reporting name Killjoy) is a Russian hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
cameldrv 3y ago
The Kinzhal is AFAIK ballistic. The Russians refer to it as a hypersonic weapon because it sounds scary, but really it’s just an air launched SRBM. The Russians do have a maneuvering hypersonic weapon, the Avangard, but it’s strictly nuclear and launched from an ICBM booster, not a plane.
- themgt 3y ago
  It's worth watching the videos of the Kinzhal/Patriot showdown in Kiev. As far as I can tell the actual raw videos are pretty rare anywhere mainstream. I found the Telegraph with a minute of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sTZ1_9Cn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sTZ1_9Cn8 And just some rando with the closest to the original raw video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxX2gqdlkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxX2gqdlkQ Objectively as possible it looks like ~30 Patriot missiles were fired (plausibly the whole 32 missile battery). The production rate of these by Lockheed Martin is 500 missiles, annual. Up to 550/year starting this year. They're apparently attempting to intercept somewhere between 2-6 Kinzhals fired, and it appears 1-2 of those Kinzhals (i.e. between 15-100%) got through and struck the Patriot battery and at least damaged it. That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success. So it's both correct that Kinzhal is really just an air-launched SRBM not a hypersonic glide weapon, and that our existing missile defense looks at best barely capable of partially defending against very limited numbers of conventional SRBM.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success. How many Kinzhals can Russia make a month? I can only find motivated sources, but those say ~10/month, and that's after a push to increase production.
    - themgt 3y ago
      The question you should be asking is how many China can make in a month.
vezuchyy 3y ago
Seems like a footage of Patriot system firing out millions worth of ammunition and being destroyed/damaged afterwards by a ballistic missile is a big deal for its sales prospectives.
- JanSt 3y ago
  I don‘t believe it was destroyed. Russia would have continued attacks ok Kiev otherwise.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Deception is always possible, but both Ukraine and the US have claimed only minor damage to the Patriot, repaired and back in service within a day. Patriot batteries are also made up of a number of different launchers; damage to one doesn't take out the whole thing. All we have in the footage to go on is a flash. No indication of what kind or how much damage was done in it.
- fauxpause_ 3y ago
  “Unstoppable* missile” *have been stopped
  - Animatronio 3y ago
    ... by their targets.
- zip1234 3y ago
  The Patriot had minor damage. Regardless, all SAM systems, regardless of how good they are, have vulnerabilities to massed attacks. My understanding in this case is that the Patriot performed very well.
- adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
  not really. If a Patriot systems fires out $5M of ammo, gets destroyed, but shot down missiles that otherwise would have destroyed 5 tanks, that might be an absolute bargain. similarly, if it shot out $5M ammo against $20M worth of missiles fired at it..
lazide 3y ago
Apparently, the biggest issue with true hypersonic weapons (including missles) is that they can’t ‘see’ - the plasma created by their speed stops radar, any high resolution optical, etc. systems from working effectively. Everyone else however can see them just fine. So they might be able to maneuver (normal ballistic missiles can usually do last minute maneuvering too!), but without data it’s blind. Maybe useful if already programmed with a decent random walk, but it doesn’t help it actively avoid something coming for it, and it doesn’t let it aim for moving targets that can adjust course. Slower stuff doesn’t have this issue, but is of course slower. This is the same reason why supercavitating torpedos seem really cool on paper, but are not actually all that useful or scary (unless nuclear tipped). Unless the blast radius is huge or the target is fundamentally fixed (a large building), you can just… move out of the way.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  This is where starlink becomes a huge advantage, because it can see for you and communicate to the back end.

up2isomorphism 3y ago

What’s the point of reading a highly informative article written by a domain expert and then simply state your opinion by laying out wrong facts?

the_af 3y ago
Agreed. And the article goes in great detail of why a non-ballistic hypersonic projectile is so difficult to stop -- everything is going at extreme speeds and there's little to no time to maneuver, so if it deviates from the predicted trajectory you cannot intercept it at all. Why ignore all of the article? If a hypersonic missile can be intercepted by a Patriot, then it stands to reason it wasn't truly maneuverable, i.e. it was ballistic!
fauxpause_ 3y ago
The article begins by referring to Russia using Hypersonic missiles against Ukraine, and then goes into detail about what defenses are necessary to defend against these weapons. It’s a good article. But the reality is that the Russian missiles making headlines don’t meet the specs of the article. Ukraine is shooting them down just fine using decades old technology.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
  > Ukraine is shooting them down just fine using decades old technology. It is not publicly known whether this is true. The Ukrainians claim they shot down 6 of 6 Kinzhal missiles over Kiev in one night with a Patriot battery. In the available videos of the event, all that can be seen is that a few dozen air defense missiles were fired, and that something got through and struck the general location where the air defense battery was. A very healthy dose of skepticism is warranted about claims made in wartime by interested parties.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    Russia arresting the Kinzhal developers for treason (read: failure) tells you all you need to know. Note also that they purposefully forbid videos of air defenses to avoid showing where air defenses are. At least one Kinzhal was confirmed shot down earlier before the wave of 6 or so.
    - DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
      Another view would say that the explosion in the video, where the air-defense battery appeared to be, demonstrates that the claim about all Kinzhals being intercepted was not truthful. The initial claim was that the Patriot battery was undamaged, but later it was admitted that the battery was at least partially damaged. It seems that the full truth is not being told, possibly by both sides. > Note also that they purposefully forbid videos of air defenses to avoid showing where air defenses are. This has not prevented videos from leaking, as in this case. > At least one Kinzhal was confirmed shot down earlier before the wave of 6 or so. Independently confirmed, or claimed? This gets to my initial point, that one should be extremely skeptical about unverifiable claims made by both sides.
      - fauxpause_ 3y ago
        Shrug. The Kremlin loudly arresting the Kinzhal developers for treason after the Kinzhals get shot down suggests a clear narrative to me about who is telling the truth. The best case you can make for Russia is that the Kinzhal developers actually did commit treason but in a way that was unrelated to the Kinzhal missiles not being effective which is… laughable
        the_af 3y ago
        Ukraine is also arresting people who film AA incidents, so who cares. The governments of both countries are being "selective" about the truth and imposing censorship by force. Which makes sense at times of war! Nobody here should take anything released by the involved parties (and their sponsors) as gospel. It's war. War is about deception.
- the_af 3y ago
  > The article begins by referring to Russia using Hypersonic missiles against Ukraine, and then goes into detail about what defenses are necessary to defend against these weapons. The article explicitly states, one paragraph later than the beginning, that "about half of that is just plain wrong". The author also explains the hypersonic missiles are nothing new, that they are old tech, and that the real threat would be maneuverable hypersonic missiles, which the Khinzal is not. The Khinzal is ballistic. So when the author writes of the threat of maneuverable hypersonics, and you say "The non-ballistic variety that Russia claimed was unstoppable [...]", you are both speaking of different kinds of weapons with different capabilities. The Khinzal is old tech for which there are counters. The author is speaking of newer tech for which there are fewer counters.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    I don’t agree that the article makes this clear. The article states > These are specifically designed for ballistic threats, which are common, and their extreme effectiveness is precisely why Russia and China have invested in something else. And > Russia used hypersonic missiles against Ukraine” — alarming! The average member of the public, as well as many policymakers, now understand that these things are dangerous because they are just too fast to shoot down. Clearly something needs to be done… (sarcastic) It really ought to make clear explicitly in the article that the missiles it referred to in the beginning are NOT what it spends the rest of the article discussing. It confused me at least. Because, without doing further research, I assumed the Kinzhals must not be ballistic because they’re indirectly referenced in an article about maneuverable missiles!
    - the_af 3y ago
      Well, it says half of the opening paragraph is "just plain wrong". It doesn't mention the Khinzal by name, true.
      - fauxpause_ 3y ago
        The is saying that it’s wrong that hypersonic are bad because they’re fast. It goes on to clarify why the new tech is bad. And, imo, implies that this includes the ones referenced in the beginning. But in reality it does not. But whatever. Semantics at this point.
GuB-42 3y ago
Not commenting on GP post, but it is an area where I would not trust domain experts. This kind of work is typically very classified and experts have clearances. Having a clearance mean you can't talk freely, the more you know, the less you can say. Ideally you say nothing at all about your work, but I know some of them will simply repeat what is found in newspapers when asked. The less accurate, the better. People without clearances, working on a domain that is tangential but not the domain itself are probably more reliable, as they don't know truths that cannot be told, but they know enough to make informed guesses. I take this article as informative but only for the general idea. The part about which country has what capabilities, I give absolutely no credence.

airgapstopgap 3y ago

Kinzhal is simply an air-launched 9K720 Iskander, though, and it was always known to be interceptible because its trajectory is deterministic. You just need good radars. No, hypersonics are a legitimate new development, Russia just deceptively brands some of its low-tech arsenal.

fauxpause_ 3y ago
I agree. But I don’t think the article makes that clear. In fact I think it strongly implies otherwise that the missiles being used against Ukraine are the scary maneuvering kind.
- andrewflnr 3y ago
  When you say "they're not very scary", without mentioning that it's entirely due to dishonest marketing that "they" (the Russian "hypersonic weapons in Ukraine) are even in the conversation, you contribute to the confusion.
  - fauxpause_ 3y ago
    I guess? The article is the thing that introduces them as such and does not clarify to begin the problem, imo.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

credit_guy 3y ago

What Russia used were actually ballistic missiles. Here's the wikipedia description [1] The Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (in Russian: Х-47М2 Кинжал, "Dagger", NATO reporting name Killjoy) is a Russian hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal

cameldrv 3y ago

The Kinzhal is AFAIK ballistic. The Russians refer to it as a hypersonic weapon because it sounds scary, but really it’s just an air launched SRBM. The Russians do have a maneuvering hypersonic weapon, the Avangard, but it’s strictly nuclear and launched from an ICBM booster, not a plane.

themgt 3y ago
It's worth watching the videos of the Kinzhal/Patriot showdown in Kiev. As far as I can tell the actual raw videos are pretty rare anywhere mainstream. I found the Telegraph with a minute of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sTZ1_9Cn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sTZ1_9Cn8 And just some rando with the closest to the original raw video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxX2gqdlkQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxX2gqdlkQ Objectively as possible it looks like ~30 Patriot missiles were fired (plausibly the whole 32 missile battery). The production rate of these by Lockheed Martin is 500 missiles, annual. Up to 550/year starting this year. They're apparently attempting to intercept somewhere between 2-6 Kinzhals fired, and it appears 1-2 of those Kinzhals (i.e. between 15-100%) got through and struck the Patriot battery and at least damaged it. That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success. So it's both correct that Kinzhal is really just an air-launched SRBM not a hypersonic glide weapon, and that our existing missile defense looks at best barely capable of partially defending against very limited numbers of conventional SRBM.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success. How many Kinzhals can Russia make a month? I can only find motivated sources, but those say ~10/month, and that's after a push to increase production.
  - themgt 3y ago
    The question you should be asking is how many China can make in a month.

vezuchyy 3y ago

Seems like a footage of Patriot system firing out millions worth of ammunition and being destroyed/damaged afterwards by a ballistic missile is a big deal for its sales prospectives.

JanSt 3y ago
I don‘t believe it was destroyed. Russia would have continued attacks ok Kiev otherwise.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Deception is always possible, but both Ukraine and the US have claimed only minor damage to the Patriot, repaired and back in service within a day. Patriot batteries are also made up of a number of different launchers; damage to one doesn't take out the whole thing. All we have in the footage to go on is a flash. No indication of what kind or how much damage was done in it.
fauxpause_ 3y ago
“Unstoppable* missile” *have been stopped
- Animatronio 3y ago
  ... by their targets.
zip1234 3y ago
The Patriot had minor damage. Regardless, all SAM systems, regardless of how good they are, have vulnerabilities to massed attacks. My understanding in this case is that the Patriot performed very well.
adgjlsfhk1 3y ago
not really. If a Patriot systems fires out $5M of ammo, gets destroyed, but shot down missiles that otherwise would have destroyed 5 tanks, that might be an absolute bargain. similarly, if it shot out $5M ammo against $20M worth of missiles fired at it..

lazide 3y ago

Apparently, the biggest issue with true hypersonic weapons (including missles) is that they can’t ‘see’ - the plasma created by their speed stops radar, any high resolution optical, etc. systems from working effectively. Everyone else however can see them just fine. So they might be able to maneuver (normal ballistic missiles can usually do last minute maneuvering too!), but without data it’s blind. Maybe useful if already programmed with a decent random walk, but it doesn’t help it actively avoid something coming for it, and it doesn’t let it aim for moving targets that can adjust course. Slower stuff doesn’t have this issue, but is of course slower. This is the same reason why supercavitating torpedos seem really cool on paper, but are not actually all that useful or scary (unless nuclear tipped). Unless the blast radius is huge or the target is fundamentally fixed (a large building), you can just… move out of the way.

mensetmanusman 3y ago
This is where starlink becomes a huge advantage, because it can see for you and communicate to the back end.