it makes sense if you can get there, russia clearly does not have enough force to get there right now. if they tried it on day one with conviction they might have succeeded, the chance is lost for that kind of surprise attack.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
CEP 10m isn't magical, you just need GNSS, in Russian case Glonass, it is well within Russian capability. That is why I was highly skeptical about the claim from USNI.
Seems US is looking the other way now.
They didn't strike Belgorod airfield they took out its IADS the same IADS that downed two Ukraine fighters one of them being a SU-24.
They didn't strike Belgorod airfield they took out its IADS the same IADS that downed two Ukraine fighters one of them being a SU-24.
I guess Kaliber strikes will resume shortly. If this was my operation, everytime they strike Russian territory I would hit back hard against infrastructure across the country.
Attaching a high cost to these strikes is imperative if they are serious about this.
Any lack of accuracy the missiles might have is due to issues with GLONASS itself rather than the missiles.
There were times a little over a decade ago when the satellite constellation was not fully operational. When you do not have the full constellation up the accuracy will go down severely. Right now the GLONASS constellation is fully operational and all the satellites come with more accurate clocks (GLONASS-M and GLONASS-K), and a new CDMA signal L3OC (GLONASS-K).
GLONASS accuracy right now should be around 5-7m or better.
Next generation GLONASS-K2 satellites are expected to improve accuracy by like an order of magnitude when or if they become operational.
Exagerated claims of lack of accuracy of Russian missiles like 30m or worse are BS. We have seen Iskander hit a Buk TEL which is roughly the same size as a tank, and even much older Kh-22 missiles hit small buildings. The Kh-22 was originally designed in Soviet times as a tactical nuclear weapon carrier to hit aircraft carrier battle groups. So clearly the accuracy is not as bad as that. The Russians also used cruise missiles to hit the flood gates of a dam in Ukraine a week or two ago without damaging the dam itself. If that is not accurate I do not know what is.
There were times a little over a decade ago when the satellite constellation was not fully operational. When you do not have the full constellation up the accuracy will go down severely. Right now the GLONASS constellation is fully operational and all the satellites come with more accurate clocks (GLONASS-M and GLONASS-K), and a new CDMA signal L3OC (GLONASS-K).
GLONASS accuracy right now should be around 5-7m or better.
Next generation GLONASS-K2 satellites are expected to improve accuracy by like an order of magnitude when or if they become operational.
Exagerated claims of lack of accuracy of Russian missiles like 30m or worse are BS. We have seen Iskander hit a Buk TEL which is roughly the same size as a tank, and even much older Kh-22 missiles hit small buildings. The Kh-22 was originally designed in Soviet times as a tactical nuclear weapon carrier to hit aircraft carrier battle groups. So clearly the accuracy is not as bad as that. The Russians also used cruise missiles to hit the flood gates of a dam in Ukraine a week or two ago without damaging the dam itself. If that is not accurate I do not know what is.
This is basically a missile with similar characteristics to the Iskander. The latest variants do have more range though, up to 700km range, which means they should be able to hit Western Ukraine from Russia proper without using Belarus as the launch site.
Last edited:
I think Russia is looking to conserve it's tactical nuke capable Iskander-M stockpile as much as possible, seeing there's a high chance they're going to attack Ukraine together with Belarus soon. They'll need to guard against NATO intervention on their flanks when that happens.
Those Mig-31Ks flying with Kinzhals over Minsk are probably show of force against NATO rather than Ukraine. According to the Belarus govt, NATO is flying more than 30 reconnaissance missions along the Belarus border per week.
It might just be a storage issue for older missiles, Russia did lob a large amount of them and equipment storage for the armed forces varies greatly in quality from what we've seen. More accurate strikes may be performed by newer missiles, I've seen reports of manufacturing dates in 2019 from fragments of some kalibir that was fired.
A US think tank published a report a couple years ago that the US could strike Belarus with nukes in case of conflict with Russia as a warning to Russia without supposedly escalating the conflict by hitting Russian territory proper. That is why Lukashenko asked and got Iskander-M with nuclear warhead sharing and I suppose now Russian MiG-31Ks are stationed there as well.
An extremely unpleasant thing, generally speaking. Judging by the rate of application, we are talking about hundreds or even thousands of such machines. In addition, a swap of technology and components is possible, which could further increase production and supply. The greatest danger, in my opinion, is the extremely high targeting accuracy, which ensures the removal of large air defenses, which will pave the way for bombers.
In today's world, there is still no adequate cost/effectiveness in terms of air defence from these mopeds. For example, judging by the failed launches of psrk on lancets, this is a difficult target even for an expensive missile. One can only partially level out the threats. One could dig caponiers, this is relevant from drones that can't dive hard. Lightweight anti-missile shelters could be created, like stationary "domes" for poplars. For example, carryable lattice-type, quick-mounted structures with a hinged roof. They can save from kamikaze drones with shaped and fragmentation parts, but not from an impact core. It is possible to increase the number of moulages directly on positions, although the latter is no longer particularly effective in the case of regular reconnaissance.
Yes I suspect that's the main reason for importing missiles. And Iran and North Korea have the most sanction resistant arms industry while Russia clearly wasn't ready for decoupling from the West.
What other countries might export to Russia? China can't yet for political reasons, but Pakistan could be one option. As a nuclear weapons state they are essentially safe to do as they please.