Another pro-Russian channel is unhappy with the inaction of the VKS in the lack of construction of shelters for aircraft, following attacks with more than 30 Ukrainian drones on the Morozovsk airfield
I think it's a first for the MQ-4C.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
That is really a marketting game. The missile is a symetric body with tail fins which gives the missile certain degree of maneuverability. It is the same tech of MARV (maneuverable reentry vehicle). This has been done by many countries such as Russia (iskander) and China (DF-21 series) for example. The "not ballistic missile" is what the manufacturer calls it. I don't know how Russia catagorize iskander, but from my reading of China's papers, it is called ballistic missile with maneuverability. I think I have heard "quassi ballistic missile" being used widely in the western media when referring such missiles.
For military planner and scientists, it doesn't matter how you call it. It only matters for company to sell it, for this purpose "ballistic" is old-fasioned and low tech which you want to stay as far away as possible.
One of the appropriate terms would be semi-ballistic or aero-ballistic missile. In this case, the missile has small wings (which look like fins because they are so small) and flies for some time (of course, horizontally), and when the fuel runs out, it plummets into a ballistic trajectory, for example the ATACMS, Iskander, etc.
Let's highlight here first that the maximum depth of Ukrainian artillery was 90 km with the M-30 and M-31 guided rockets of the MLRS/HIMARS systems. To avoid being exposed, the launchers must be about 30 km from the front line, which gives only 60 km of capacity to attack in depth.
With ATACMS this range will be multiplied by 4.4 times, reaching a depth of 270 km. As a result, long-range SAM systems will either have to move away or be destroyed, because they are clearly high-value targets. The difference is that the ATACMS has the ability to reach Mach 4 and this greatly reduces the probability of the SAM intercepting.
As there are no long-range SAM batteries, air superiority is established on the Ukrainian side and the implementation of CAS becomes possible. Better if it is done by the F-16.
Docked ships would be easy prey. But there is a version of the ATACMS with a 230 kg unitary warhead that can act in 3 ways: penetration (delay fuze), explosion at ground level (contact fuze) and explosion in the air (proximity fuze).
If it is against air defenses, the ideal would be to program the missile to explode in the air, launching shrapnel over a very wide area, which appears to be what is happening.
If it is against ships, you can opt for a contact or penetration explosion.
If it is a bunker or a building, the penetration blast is better.
In theory, such Russian SAMs are capable of shooting down. The S-400 system and the S-300V are said to be capable of intercepting missiles with speeds of the order of 3 km/s. ATACMS peaks at 1.3 km/s. But we know that intercepting ballistic and semi-ballistic missiles is not an exact science.
As we are seeing the performance of ATACMS vs Russian SAMs, regardless of any loss claims, ATACMS is doing very well. Systems like the S-400 and S-300V were made exactly to intercept missiles like the ATACMS.
Russian SAMs were performing reasonably well against M-30/31, HIMARS rockets are much easier to intercept than ATACMS. Their speed does not exceed Mach 2 and they are ballistic (even guided rockets have little maneuverability, only in the terminal phase and enough to refine aim), while the ATACMS is semi-ballistic (aero-ballistic), with some maneuverability in the different phases of the trajectory and speed of Mach 4. Basically the HIMARS rockets would have to be intercepted by systems like Pantsir which is more appropriate for the C-RAM function. But what also ended up affecting the performance of the M-30/31 was degradation of accuracy through EW.
Two SU-34's in hangars were hit by Ukraine
So the west "confesticated" Russian money for "invasion of Ukraine" but kept the money for themselves, then put debt on Ukraine for using the Russian money. If we look from Ukrainian's perspective, it is getting indebtted for its "own" moeny, that reminds me of the saying "被卖了还替别人数钱". From the western perspective, I can't think of any "ingenious" way of getting rich than this one. I must say that both Ukraine and the west deserves each other.
VKS look like they don't care a lot about losses when you have one years to react and let your base without basic passive aircrafts protection...
Russian army put barns on tanks... can VKS just build steel barns to put their fighter in ? It would stop most shrapnels at least...
They hit the airfield with drones so where's the Russian CAP?
Unlike the US the Russians and Chinese pretty much keep quiet on the MCR (Mission Capable Rate) of their Flanker fleet but the rumors have been that Flankers are hangar queens and now in time of war it could be the rumor is true. It doesn't make sense for a top 3 air force after two years of war to not have CAP at least the general area where there is war. At least have an AWACS flying so that it can scramble fighters to intercept incoming drones.
Unlike the US the Russians and Chinese pretty much keep quiet on the MCR (Mission Capable Rate) of their Flanker fleet but the rumors have been that Flankers are hangar queens and now in time of war it could be the rumor is true. It doesn't make sense for a top 3 air force after two years of war to not have CAP at least the general area where there is war. At least have an AWACS flying so that it can scramble fighters to intercept incoming drones.
Are you joking? China keeps quiet on a lot of things. We know the Chinese Flankers are flying regularly, just ask the Taiwan Airspace monitors.