The War in the Ukraine

Anlsvrthng said:

Very interesting video, and looks real.

Timinig is OK, the operator was under the missile as it flyby, launched the SAM at sec, explosion around 8-9 sec, it is the real times for an on tai lengagement.

If the interceptor twice as fast as the target then as many second passed since the closes aproach until the launch will be required to hit the target.


Problem is , most likelly every succesfull interception require at least 3, possibly 5 launch.


And to have enought MANPADS to make a screen, it require at least 1000 launcher to make a credible filter on one side, I think it is safe to assume Ukraine would need 4000 MANPADS at minimum, and a weekly 200 replenishment.

Required trained operators, without proper training the stock will be depleted in weeks time.


Means again, the full Stinger stock of the USArequired to cover Ukraine needs.

Correcton, the soldier use a grom, by reports the stinger cant intercept cruise missile.

So , ukraine needs fewthousand grom, as it stand.

Click to expand...

I believe that each manpads can with greater or lesser probability shoot down a cruise, but I don't know how you arrived at the assumption of the number of manpads needed to defend Ukraine from Russian cruises. Given the reduced range and the very limited reaction time, creating a shield of thousands of manpads is not possible, I'm afraid (also because they are needed at the front...), not even considering that the Ukrainians already have thousands of manpads (the American Stingers alone have received 1400): I don't think it is possible to shoot them all down, but only to do the best with what you have... everything you have. On the other hand, hundreds of cruisers have been shot down in various ways while Ukrainian (air and sea) drones make life difficult for launchers and depots (expect more surprises...).

The cruise in question was actually attacked by at least 2 manpads: the first one can clearly be seen missing its target when the cruise passes exactly over the head of the shooter. The shooting by the second one was also contested by the Russians...

Nevertheless, if a cruise is within range of the manpads it is still a paying target enough to justify more missiles, but this does not mean that anyone is thinking of basing Ukraine's air defence on these, albeit increasingly integrated with the country's air warning system. Gepard, Aspide, Crotale, Hawk, NASAMS and IRIS-T already are. As we know more will come...

In the meantime, the Russians carry out the last launch of the year...evidently they wanted to 'celebrate' in their own way by repeating the attack of a few days ago, which is said not to have gone very well (due to an excess of zeal against the Ukrainian attacks on their bases, this time it seems they shot down one of their Su-24s and perhaps even some missiles)...



In fact, Turkey thought it best to let a few missile-launching ships pass through the Bosphorus; a ship that probably got busy today... On the other hand, if Moscow comes up with the idea that ships leaving Murmansk have to return to 'their base' on the Black Sea, there is Article 19 of the Montreux Convention to give a little help to those with a nerve...



In time of war, Turkey not being belligerent, warships of belligerent Powers shall not pass, except i.a. to return to their base. (art. 19)

The relocation of the ships was probably a consequence of the attacks on Sevastopol (Kalibr's ships and stores were hit) and Engels (with the bombers being transferred to other bases).

Michaelsinodef said:

?? If a Stinger is 65k, and you launch 100s of them... that's 6.5m for only a 100, 13m if we go up to 200 though.

Doesn't necessarily get that cost effective if the above is the case.

Click to expand...

Well, if you capable to see the future path of a missile then a hunting rife enought to shoot down the cruise missile.


Problem is the missile have 1000 km of option to pass the defense line, and the defenders has to be two km from each other.

Means you need 500 firing position for a theoretical 1000 km long frontline .

Now, if the missile came on the same point then they have to have enought capability to shoot down ALL of them, means they needs hundred(s) of missile on each firing point ALONG THE FULL FRONTLINE.


Means the required number of missules = number of firing poins * number of incoming missiles* required SAM missile per incoming Calibr.

So, in the above example , if the maximum nuber of incoming missiles is 70, and they need 2 SAM for each then 500*70*2=70 000 MANPADS.

New Polish manpad cost 170 000 USD each .
Could play with the numbers, but the required number of MANPADS mindblowing.

typexx said:

how much shilkas did ukraine have before the war and where are they ??

Click to expand...

Ukraine have worked on modernizations with adding strela missiles (1999) or Igla missiles (2017). Don't know if they have done it on multiple chassis or not. Didn't see a lot on footages... some last june I think:


They are quite fragile machines with insane barrels wear and low armor. Don't know if they have some still working far from the frontlines.

They had 70 tunguska 2S6s too, didn't see on footage beside a captured one I think.

tabu said:

No. All MANPADS are capable of shooting down cruise missiles. Especially the Stingers.

Click to expand...

How you are so sure a Stinger can?

I mean, we have seen videos of MANPADS hitting recon drones and these continuing on like nothing happened.

tabu said:

not even considering that the Ukrainians already have thousands of manpads (the American Stingers alone have received 1400)

Click to expand...

As if they haven't been spent trying to shoot down Ka-52, Su-34, Shaheds and other stuff the last few months.

They also received thousands of Javelins, yet they have been largely missing. These things have a shelf life once you take them out of their container, either you use it or lose it.

tabu said:

On the other hand, hundreds of cruisers have been shot down in various ways

Click to expand...

With little evidence to show for it, meanwhile the percentage of the population without electricity keeps increasing

tabu said:

Ukrainian (air and sea) drones make life difficult for launchers and depots (expect more surprises...).

Click to expand...

I don't know, I keep seeing the Grigorovichs and Steregushchiy going out to sea with impunity as well as the Tu-160 and Tu-95.

tabu said:

As we know more will come...

Click to expand...

In quantities not enough to make a difference for systems with lackluster performances to begin with. Crotales, Aspide and Hawks are ancient tech, NASAMS and Iris-T are limited by the fact that they are repurposed AAM's and so on.

NATO never invested heavily on land based air defense systems, it has never been a priority since the 1980s and it shows. Trying to pretend they are game changers, again, is cope.

tabu said:

(due to an excess of zeal against the Ukrainian attacks on their bases, this time it seems they shot down one of their Su-24s and perhaps even some missiles)...

Click to expand...

With little evidence to show for it, again. We do have plenty of evidence of the Ukranians shooting down themselves, though

There was another wave of missile strikes today. According to Rybar, the targets went beyond energy infrastructure this time, with hits in on SBU and AFU Offices

sheogorath said:

How you are so sure a Stinger can?

I mean, we have seen videos of MANPADS hitting recon drones and these continuing on like nothing happened.

Click to expand...

The most recent FIM-92 Stingers are designed to be able to shoot down cruise missiles according to the Army’s Cruise Missile Defense Systems publication. The Stinger missile accelerates to Mach 2.5. Kh-55 cruises at Mach 0.75. It's certainly possible, but requires excellent positioning and training. There was another video of a MANPADS taking out a cruise missile about a month ago.

Kraken unit in combat, intense 12m video:

Zichan said:

The most recent FIM-92 Stingers are designed to be able to shoot down cruise missiles according to the Army’s Cruise Missile Defense Systems publication. The Stinger missile accelerates to Mach 2.5. Kh-55 cruises at Mach 0.75. It's certainly possible, but requires excellent positioning and training. There was another video of a MANPADS taking out a cruise missile about a month ago.

Click to expand...

Meant it in a way of the payload being enough to knock it down reliably, hence my example with the drones.

Although as you point out, with the right positioning you could take out a cruise missile with anything, as long it isn't the hypersonic kind.

Zichan said:

The most recent FIM-92 Stingers are designed to be able to shoot down cruise missiles according to the Army’s Cruise Missile Defense Systems publication. The Stinger missile accelerates to Mach 2.5. Kh-55 cruises at Mach 0.75. It's certainly possible, but requires excellent positioning and training. There was another video of a MANPADS taking out a cruise missile about a month ago.

Click to expand...

A tank gun can shoot at 1500 m/s, far faster than a cruise missile. this with proper positioning and gun elevation a tank can also shoot down cruise missiles, by your logic.

FairAndUnbiased said:

A tank gun can shoot at 1500 m/s, far faster than a cruise missile. this with proper positioning and gun elevation a tank can also shoot down cruise missiles, by your logic.

Click to expand...

I mean, in principle, yes? In practice, turrets probably can't traverse that fast, and no known Fire Control System in the world has the ability to track a target that fast.

Then again, never say never. Stupid stuff that was thought to be impossible has happened before.