8 ms·

The article begins by referring to Russia using Hypersonic missiles against Ukraine, and then goes into detail about what defenses are necessary to defend again

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.
        fauxpause_ 3y ago
        The problem with filming AA deployments is not about hiding the efficacy of AA deployments. It’s about hiding their locations. What is the purpose of arresting your missile scientists for treason? What’s your best case interpretation?
        the_af 3y ago
        > The problem with filming AA deployments is not about hiding the efficacy of AA deployments. The problem is both, and Ukraine is arresting people who film them. It's martial law, both countries are at war and truth suffers (understandably). > What is the purpose of arresting your missile scientists for treason? What’s your best case interpretation? I don't know, I would guess: - They said something about the Khinzal that downplays the importance of the weapon. - They said something that would help Ukraine better counter them. - They said something against Putin or the military invasion. What they very likely didn't say is that the Khinzal is a hypersonic maneuverable weapon, which is the point of TFA you're commenting about.
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.

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.
      - fauxpause_ 3y ago
        The problem with filming AA deployments is not about hiding the efficacy of AA deployments. It’s about hiding their locations. What is the purpose of arresting your missile scientists for treason? What’s your best case interpretation?
        the_af 3y ago
        > The problem with filming AA deployments is not about hiding the efficacy of AA deployments. The problem is both, and Ukraine is arresting people who film them. It's martial law, both countries are at war and truth suffers (understandably). > What is the purpose of arresting your missile scientists for treason? What’s your best case interpretation? I don't know, I would guess: - They said something about the Khinzal that downplays the importance of the weapon. - They said something that would help Ukraine better counter them. - They said something against Putin or the military invasion. What they very likely didn't say is that the Khinzal is a hypersonic maneuverable weapon, which is the point of TFA you're commenting about.

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.