That is what's going to happen. Everyone knows this. F16s are just the western equivalent of a Mig 29. The only thing they really offer is a) they exist and b) AIM-120s that can fire and forget.
Is anyone that isn't a drooling fool actually saying that F16s won't be shot down or something? This is a massive large scale war and the F-16 is itself old, obviously many different upgrade packages changes capabilities. You're not incorrect about it being a rough equivalent to the Mig 29, I think the point is having larger numbers of a jet to use strategically along with it being a multirole fighter that has the ability to use a massive amount of different Western munitions that otherwise could not have been sent to Ukraine to use. Like Ukraine had to modify and kit-bash usage of certain missiles with their existing fleet and this is not going to be an issue anymore.
The amount of F-16s is not "game changing" either, but it will offer a threat to the Russian air force and more options for intercepting drone / missile strikes aimed at hitting Ukrainian cities, striking strategic targets as well as ground support during offensives / defending against them. Largest outcome is likely to be Russias airforce backing off again and gather dust as they did for a long time, which considering the reliance on FAB spam and glide bombs should be cause for concern for Russians that are not stupid.
End of the day this is like year 2 of Russias war against Ukraine and Russia still has not achieved air superiority over Ukraine. The arrival of a bunch of F-16s, which opens the door for other Jets being sent too, is not "the end of the world" for Russia but it's also not something to be MEMEing at like it's a non issue considering the circumstances.
The F-16s that Ukraine is getting are way better than MiG-29s, not necessarily because of their Air to Air capabilities but because they are more compatible with western weaponry (makes HARMs more effective) , have better sensors and radar than current Ukranian aircraft and have a way more efficient cockpit with displays and many useful functions that Ukranian Su-27s and MiG-29s lack.
this might sound like a stupid question for all weapon system experts out there. but can a patriot shoot down a iskander missile ? or is it purely for anti aircraft
Patriots are anti-ballistic missile also
Their main operational use before this war was shooting down Scud missiles. Or failing to rather.
They started out designed to shoot down planes. Then after the Cold War ended they were modified to focus on shooting down missiles since nobody really had an air force to challenge the US.
Now in Ukraine they are again being forced into their original role after many years of modifications to make it better at shooting down missiles only
The difference with an Iskander however and especially an Iskander-M is that it can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot.
> The difference with an Iskander however and especially an Iskander-M is that it can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot.
Then we would be seeing more failed interceptions, which isn't the case. Ukraine just doesn't have the number of AA systems, positioning of AA systems, ammunition, early warning systems, and radar coverage to ever achieve anything near 100% interception rate of ballistic missiles even if patriots were 100% accurate which obviously no AA system is.
The same applies to Russia. Sometimes with ATACMS strikes we see failed interceptions, sometimes we see successful interceptions of some but not all missiles, sometimes we see no attempt at interceptions. There are a million factors that come into play.
Many missile experts in the west have pointed to the universal difficulty of intercepting ballistic missiles as evidence that the hypersonic cruise missile arms race is idiotic, even ignoring their issues and limitations.
>Then we would be seeing more failed interceptions, which isn't the case. Ukraine just doesn't have the number of AA systems,
The Iskander can indeed manoeuvre (as can ATACAMS), which makes the interception much more difficult - but not impossible.
Yes, my point was that we have no evidence or data showing specifically how effective Iskander's maneuverability is vs patriots so the claim should not be made with such absolute confidence. The user I responded to specifically claimed that Iskanders "can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot" which may or may not be true, but I think we can all agree we've never seen evidence of it.
**Generally speaking**, when we see Iskander hits there is zero attempt at interception. This doesn't really have anything to do with maneuverability. More likely, it means that Russia targeted an area without coverage or Ukraine failed to track the missile.
>Generally speaking, when we see Iskander hits there is zero attempt at interception.
Zero attempt that's visible from the edited cuts of the impact. You have no idea if there were any interception attempts or not just from those clips...
EDIT: The guy blocked me and ran away after I proved him wrong with his own words. Pro UA absolutely mentally shattered, so fragile nowadays.
No, but it seems pro-RU are awfully interested in deflecting from my simple observation that the original guy claimed:
> The difference with an Iskander however and especially an Iskander-M is that it can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot.
Despite having no evidence. I said this claim "may or may not be true." Perhaps your translator isn't working correctly.
No, I propose you don't declare that "when we see Iskander hits there is zero attempt at interception" when such interceptions would be out of the scope of those videos in the first place. It would be more accurate to say that when we see Iskander hits we can't see possible interceptions.
We've seen evidence that the PAC-3 Patriot can shoot down Kinzhal (which is a version of Iskander) - but we've seen only one such case verified. We've also seen that Russian systems can shoot down ATACMS - again, as far as I know, in only one verified case.
Generally speaking, you are right - both sides try to use those expensive missiles in areas where there is no anti-ballistic missile defence. However, both the Iskanders and ATACMS seem capable of penetrating such defence if used in numers.
We’ve indirectly seen S-400 intercept multiple ATACMS in the video where the s-400 battery in Crimea was deleted by the surviving ATACMS. IIRC there were 5 ATACMS shot, at least 6 interceptions fired, and one successful hit killing the entire battery.
Khinzals are just kind of a pointless missile and one of the things experts point to when arguing that the hypersonic arms race is foolish. Hypersonic cruise missiles like the Khinzal create so much heat due to their speed they are actually easier to track than many other missiles (for countries with modern AA systems anyway). In addition, they slow down significantly as they drop altitude. The first time a patriot intercepted a khinzal it was estimated to be traveling under Mach 2.
Meanwhile ballistic missiles are readily available, cheapish to produce (ATACMS only cost like $600k), and can reliability penetrate every current AA system under the right circumstances.
> Hypersonic cruise missiles like the Khinzal
Kinzhal is not a cruise missile, It is ballistic missile. Basically an iskander with some modifications straped on a mig-31
You can say that both the Kinzhal/Iskander and the ATACMS can reliably penetrate anti-ballistic missile defences if used in numbers (though Kinzhal looks more difficult to stop).
Such missiles are enormously useful, if for no other reason then because they can strike a target jn a few minutes. If you have an info on a Su-27 parked in an air base it's better to use a ballistic missile that takes five minutes to fly there than a cruise missile that takes an hour.
> You can say that both the Kinzhal/Iskander and the ATACMS can reliably penetrate anti-ballistic missile defences if used in numbers (though Kinzhal looks more difficult to stop).
This is reasonable. Although worth noting that the numbers required to successfully penetrate the air defense of say, Moscow or Washington, might be unrealistic. Or maybe not. Every country is super secretive about its ABM capabilities as such developments have long been considered an act of aggression given MAD.
"Then we would be seeing more failed interceptions, which isn't the case."
ORLY? And how many so called failed interception you have saw? How many succsessful interceptions you have saw?
Correct = 0. You are talking out of your ass, because you have no real raw data at all. Stop pretending to have knowledge and understanding about things you obviously have no clue.
> ORLY? And how many so called failed interception you have saw?
That is my exact point, nobody has ever seen a failed interception of a Iskander by a patriot and yet people still claim the Iskander can out-maneuver intercepting missiles causing them to fail. How can people make that claim if we've never seen it done successfully?
Are you kidding me? What kind of logic is that? The first claim is not what the Iskander can or what the Iskander can not. The first claim is what your patriot can. You have to prove what it can, not i have to falsify it.
And guess what? Raytheon is such an amateurish and corrupt part of the anglosaxon MIC, they were even unable to intercept a simple free falling SCUD with their first Patriot iteration. And they came with the excuse, that the so called Patriot System was never developed against ballistic missiles.
No, you are confused.
The first post asked if patriots can intercept Iskanders.
The first reply stated that Iskanders "can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot." No proof was provided for this claim.
In my reply, I stated that if this claim is true its surprising we haven't seen evidence of it.
> And guess what? Raytheon is such an amateurish and corrupt part of the anglosaxon MIC, they were even unable to intercept a simple free falling SCUD with their first Patriot iteration.
Were you expecting this to hurt my feelings or something? In 1991 Raytheon deployed the world's first ever anti-ballistic missile system and it ended up in some cases failing to hit or in other cases hitting but failing to destroy. There were also many successful interceptions. This isn't a big secret lol.
> And they came with the excuse, that the so called Patriot System was never developed against ballistic missiles.
Uh... That seems like a really good excuse lol
That was a really weird thing to get upset about lol
> The typicall murica stronk kid.
America's power isn't inherent, it was just ahead of the game realizing that immigration beats xenophobia every day of week. Take for example SVR Director Sergey Naryshkin who recently complained that the USA has turned Russia and its allies into, in his own words:
> "forced donors of intellectual capital"
How is a country like Russia ever going to be ahead of the world in technology when its been turned into a forced donor of intellectual capital?
Oh definitely the problem is Ukraine doesnt have enough AA to even attempt to defend against attacks like this across all the country.
I am just responding to the question of if the Patriot has the ability to stop these missiles. That being that it can but also the Iskander has it's own defences against interception.
Hypersonic missiles were understood to be the answer to ABM systems back in the late 1960's when hypersonic tech was first being developed. This was seen as a destabilizing development (a shorter window to detect an attack would put strategic missiles on a hair trigger). The Soviets and US both wanted to avoid this outcome, so they signed the ABM treaty in 1972.
While it is true that nobody has a full understanding of the other side's defense capabilities, it's not that expensive to develop manoeuverable glide vehicles, and doing so offers some insurance against an enemy making a breakthrough with missile defense. Defenses will get better, and hypersonics will evolve too. Once Bush walked away from the ABM treaty, this new arms race became inevitable.
While hypersonic weapons are hotter, their plasma cloud interferes with radar. For these weapons you would trade off IR detection over radar any day.
The US has hypersonic missiles, hypersonic interceptors (Arrow series), and has conducted successful hypersonic aircraft flights. Even back in 2004 the x-43a hit a top speed of Mach 9.6 and it had “full aerodynamic capability.”
Hypersonic interceptor missiles make a lot of sense, but hypersonic cruise missiles really don’t bring much to the table. Ballistic missiles have basically always been hypersonic, but so far most claims of maneuverability at hypersonic speed have not been proven.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most air-defense systems are a lot better at shooting down targets that flight at a steady trajectory, and speed, like a cruise missile.
Iskander is a ballistic missile, with a ballistic trajectory, and possibly even able to perform evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase.
> possibly even able to perform evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase.
Certainly able to perform evasive manoeuvres in the terminal phase - just not radical ones. It's an aeroballistic missile.
Small changes in the direction of a ballistic missile mean big shift for the interception point. The ballistic missile does this a few times and the interceptors become slow / energy deprived.
In theory? Yes. In the reality with a high probablity? Nope. The Iskander is a hypersonic missile, flying at \~50km altitude on a very flat semiballistic trajectory with 2.1-2.7km/s and changing the directions and then diving down with 90° on the target. Plus it has penetration aids like jammers and decoys.
And one word on the semiballistic trajectory: It is less efficient regarding the energy, because the ballistic trajectory is the most efficient trajectory per definition. Plus you have less drag outside the atmosphere. I think as a normal ballistic missile the Iskander has around 1000km range. And the even more advanced and air launched Kinzhal the claimed 2000km with a normal ballistic trajectory.
But: The horizontal speed on the flat semiballistic trajectory is way bigger, so you reach your target faster. Plus it is very hard to intercept targets on the edge of the space in very thin atmosphere but not in the space. You can't use kill vehicle for exo atmospheric intercepts and not normal interceptors, maneuvering with aerodynamic drag.
See here also what Ted Postol said about the so called israeli "Iron Dome" and how it failed to intercept the Iranian ballistic missiles:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r5ZHrugoe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r5ZHrugoe4)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZJb0dWHho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZJb0dWHho)
Iskandr-Ms take additional maneuvers I believe, which throw off any anti-ballistic missile system.
The patriot is a rather dated and now ineffective and disgustingly over priced system, especially compared to the S-400,. s-500 and s-550 systems.
America has always relied on 1) their very good and significant air force and 2) fighting enemies that have absolutely no threat to their air force or any air power of their own
American strategic ability since the uni-polar moment has been all hubris and zero common sense.
Most surface to air missile have the capacity to intercept any flying threat, like drones, missiles or planes. Patriot can lock and fire at an Iskander, hitting it may be slightly more difficult than hitting an aircraft
Not an expert but I believe shooting down missile is easier than shooting aircraft.
I think there is not many Patriot or any other AD system available in Ukraine, and they have to protect many places. A city like Kyiv alone probably need 4-5 batteries.
There are lots of factors to consider of course.. What aircraft / missile are we talking about?
Iskander is smaller but it is not that small, it is 7 m long object.
Speed is not really a decisive factor, it can be easily calculated.
Again, there are many factors, but if we compare "the best aircraft at one time" vs "the best missile at the same time" especially modern times, aircraft would win / harder to shoot down as it can carry more means to defeat AD.
The simplest way is modern aircraft would know if it is been targeted, then start using various ways to evade / defeat the incoming missile. So far AFAIK there is no missile with this capability.
speed is a big factor in interception, think of trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet. if the bullet has been fired out of a rifle or tossed in the air by hand, which is easier to hit? being able to calculate speed is not enough, you have to hit it with an interceptor. the faster the missile, the faster, more agile, and more precise the interceptor has to be. not easy
missiles like iskander also carry and deploy countermeasures
If we're using "manual" shot, then yes. But computerized-calculated shot, along with blast frag "bullets" (think shotgun), then it becomes much easier.
But yes, I believe speed is still a factor in terms of "times of detection", e.g when you try to intercept something like Kinzhal, you better do it fast or else it already fly outside of missile / interceptor range.
I heard F-35 has sensor that can detect radar wave before it is being detected. So it can simply fly outside the radar, plus its stealthy features, remains undetected, thus won't even be shot upon at the first place,
You've stated a common misconception about digital tracking and interceptor systems. There are two challenges that need to be considered:
1. At some point the digital needs to become "physical". Say your computer has calculated the location, trajectories and execution sequence perfectly. Time to fire the rocket engine. How precise is it's fire timing? How precise is the acceleration rate? How quickly do the control surfaces respond to updated settings to correct course?
There is always some margin of error between where the computer wants the rocket to be and where the rocket is. At mach 4.5 just 20ms of lead or lag would put you 27m off target. That's just 20ms of slow launch, delayed power up/down, delayed control surfaces response, or an other combination of issues.
2. The environment creates both sensor noise and control issues that aren't relevant in isolation but can add up to a significant degradation in capabilities. Again a loss of live tracking or effective control for a dynamic target for milliseconds will allow it to potentially move far outside the probable hit window.
> If we're using "manual" shot, then yes. But computerized-calculated shot, along with blast frag "bullets" (think shotgun), then it becomes much easier.
Suppose an object moving at a speed of Mach 6 (the speed of the ballistic version of Iskander) is at a distance of 30 kilometers and you need 1 millisecond for calculations (a very optimistic assumption), then while you are doing calculations the missile will already fly more than two meters, and given that it is constantly changing direction and speed and given that each of your anti-missiles has only one attempt, interception becomes a lottery with minimal chances. Remember the video from Kiev when Patriot tried to shoot down the only Kinzhal or Iskander ? Apparently it failed, and spent about 10 anti-missiles, each costing more than Iskander or Kinzhal.
You don’t really know what you are talking about. Ballistics missiles are WAY harder to shoot down than aircraft’s. First of all many ballistic missiles, including short and medium range ballistic missiles, DO perform evasive maneuvers in their terminal phase ie when they reenter the atmosphere, and when they enter they are traveling at hypersonic speeds, possibly Mach 8 to 10 (don’t confuse it with so-called hypersonic missiles, which fly in suppressed trajectories). Ballistic missiles can also release decoys when they reenter the atmosphere, those are designed to mimic the radar signature of the missile and travel at the same speed as the missile when they are released due to simple physics, so it’s a challenge to distinguish which one is the real missile. Second speed IS a decisive factor. Not that many radars can track objects flying at Mach 8 to 10, and your interceptor missile is also traveling above Mach 3. So that’s a > Mach 10 relative speed there. The slightest error in the interceptors orientation or the delay in tracking will result in a miss. That is why the US developed the Patriot PAC3 with a specialized interceptor equipped with a Ku-band active radar seeker for high prevision tracking of the missile and many miniature pulse rockets that can be fired to perform miniature adjustments on the interceptors orientation to ensure a hit. Whereas they still use semi active radar homing for Patriot 2s. And Soviets developed the S-300V series also specialized in intercepting ballistic missiles while they already have S-300P series for general air defense. Every nation developed SAMs capable of shooting aircraft’s first before they manage to develop a SAM capable of intercepting ballistic missiles. Wouldn’t make sense if missiles are easier to intercept would it? And finally, just because aircraft’s can perform evasive maneuvers doesn’t mean they can survive, it entirely depends on the speed of the aircraft and the energy state of the missile. That’s why there’s something called a minimum abort range (MAR) for missiles. As long as the missile is fast enough (has enough energy) and has a lock maintained on you, the plane is in big trouble. And missiles like 40N6E and HQ-9s have active seeker heads, so they can’t be easily jammed either
As for size, it has way less surface area to hit, and way less critical system area. So statistically less likely to be shutdown with same precision as a plane. Look up the surface area of a su27, you will be surprised.
As for speed.. it absolutely is a decisive factor
A radar need to track the target with enough precision in order to hit it.
This essentially means knowing where it will be in the future and calculations need to be made for interception.
Then corrections need to be constantly sent to the missiles, unless active.
But the radar returns only tell you where it was, with some error, innthe past, and tou only have so many returns per second, assuming your radar is pulse Doppler .
Your error rate means that being the same amount of time before or after the target is where you predicted affects the distance at interception, so thisbis the difference between success and failure, subsonic va high supersonic.
Also, if the proximity fuze works in the interceptor but the interceptor is behind, the blast/now needs to intercept the missile (hit it).
Russia does have a cruise missile that will deploy flairs. But I've no idea if that is an active defense or just programmed to deploy once coming into range of known AD. If I had to guess off the videos I've seen it is more programmed to do as it approaches its final destination.
Surprisingly it's the opposite. Most AA missiles use 'annular blast fragmentation warheads', where the the tiny fragments (usually tungsten) are shot at high speeds in circular pattern (it's an evolution of the idea behind old Talos continuous rod warhead).
Most ballistic missiles consist mostly of empty space (where fuel was) or the explosives (insensitive to fragments), making them surprisingly resistant to fragmentation warheads. Planes, on the other hand, are filled with fragile and highly sensitive (and squishy, in case of a pilot) components.
I could be wrong of course, but my way of thinking is:
* Aircraft has more countermeasures.
* Aircraft would know and actively "fight back" using its countermeasures, maneuvers etc while missile.. well, don't, it just keep flying at the pre-determined course.
Everything you said is correct but yheres 2 main issues here.
Aircraft are very fragile which is why frag warheads are so dangerous against them the SAM missile doesn’t need to hit the Aircraft directly but hitting them with shrapnel even if just a few is enough to cause an Aircraft to fall out of the sky. Ballistic missiles on the other hand are brutes and can get with multiple shrapnel warheads and still hit mark. Its like trying to stop a speeding truck with an AK.
secondly ballistic missiles are much much faster than Aircraft so most S systems only have a small window to intercept others there missiles will not be able to hit the Ballistics
It's way more easier to shoot down a jet fighter than a missile generally speaking.
Timing is the most important factor for countermeasure effectiveness, making velocity a better option to survive
somehow the zionist terrorists took all islamist iran terrorist missiles in last volley out. doubt that they would keep patriots around, since they don't get many aircraft attacks. just my speculation.
Many still got through.
In that case, There was too large of a distance with many western air defenses and other western assets in the way protecting IS.Iran also warned US about their attack many days ago to let them prepare and the missiles they used were also older one's.
the "many" through getting happened where was no patriot coverage.
although i agree with you that the latest iskander software update makes it virtually immune to patriots. that's why zionists donating em
Patriot PAC3s are DEFINITELY capable of shooting down an Iskander M missile. Patriot 2 variants should have that capability as well. Gulf War era Patriot 1s, not so much, they aren’t designed with engaging ballistic missiles in mind. But you should not assume they have Patriot batteries around this airfield. They only have 1 Patriot PAC3 battery guarding their capital, and 2 to 3 Patriot 2 batteries deployed elsewhere. They are probably getting additional batteries soon or have already received additional ones, but they certainly don’t have enough batteries to cover the whole country. Or the missiles for intercepting every incoming threat
Not really.. The thing with the current way of AD work (missile shooting missile / drone / aircraft) is that it can be saturated easily. Imagine sending 100 Shahed / Geranium to an airport at once (very feasible, even 200 - 300 is feasible), the AD probably shoot 50 of them and the rest will still causing havoc. Even if there is enough missile, there is probably not enough time to reload.
Thanks u are right , but doesn’t look like the case single spy/ reconnaissance + iskander making so much damage . Cuz when Ukraine showdown any drone or missile they like to put in big pictures all around with X
shahed probably cant be accurate enough to target a single aircraft, and they dont have enough payload for cluster warheads, so they probably wouldn't be effective to attack an airfield and would likely miss the targets. Remember that UA drones are accurate because they are controlled in fpv mode on final approach through starlink
Why aren't there more hardened aircraft hangars in this war? I thought the Soviet Union was serious about defence, and expected former Soviet countries to have those.
Back during the era of the Cold War while hardened hangers were used, a lot of the storage still is out on the tarmac, especially for airframes that are going to be used. But as the other guy mentioned, as you get closer to the former borders with the west, the airfields that are either still used or haven’t been demolished have hardened hangers.
https://preview.redd.it/msqmxfeo47ad1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bceddd29329f58d0c778a7ec2c73ad95c50ef4cb
Example: Haapsalu Air Base
The former Soviet airbase located in Kiltsi, Estonia was used as an interceptor base for the 425th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO. They likely had them hardened as it would be one of the first bases to likely get hit if the war went hot.
Can't wait for the f16 to arrive and for the cope when they get destroyed. They will probably said that is old jet, just wait foe the f35.
That is what's going to happen. Everyone knows this. F16s are just the western equivalent of a Mig 29. The only thing they really offer is a) they exist and b) AIM-120s that can fire and forget.
Is anyone that isn't a drooling fool actually saying that F16s won't be shot down or something? This is a massive large scale war and the F-16 is itself old, obviously many different upgrade packages changes capabilities. You're not incorrect about it being a rough equivalent to the Mig 29, I think the point is having larger numbers of a jet to use strategically along with it being a multirole fighter that has the ability to use a massive amount of different Western munitions that otherwise could not have been sent to Ukraine to use. Like Ukraine had to modify and kit-bash usage of certain missiles with their existing fleet and this is not going to be an issue anymore. The amount of F-16s is not "game changing" either, but it will offer a threat to the Russian air force and more options for intercepting drone / missile strikes aimed at hitting Ukrainian cities, striking strategic targets as well as ground support during offensives / defending against them. Largest outcome is likely to be Russias airforce backing off again and gather dust as they did for a long time, which considering the reliance on FAB spam and glide bombs should be cause for concern for Russians that are not stupid. End of the day this is like year 2 of Russias war against Ukraine and Russia still has not achieved air superiority over Ukraine. The arrival of a bunch of F-16s, which opens the door for other Jets being sent too, is not "the end of the world" for Russia but it's also not something to be MEMEing at like it's a non issue considering the circumstances.
The F-16s that Ukraine is getting are way better than MiG-29s, not necessarily because of their Air to Air capabilities but because they are more compatible with western weaponry (makes HARMs more effective) , have better sensors and radar than current Ukranian aircraft and have a way more efficient cockpit with displays and many useful functions that Ukranian Su-27s and MiG-29s lack.
this might sound like a stupid question for all weapon system experts out there. but can a patriot shoot down a iskander missile ? or is it purely for anti aircraft
Patriots are anti-ballistic missile also Their main operational use before this war was shooting down Scud missiles. Or failing to rather. They started out designed to shoot down planes. Then after the Cold War ended they were modified to focus on shooting down missiles since nobody really had an air force to challenge the US. Now in Ukraine they are again being forced into their original role after many years of modifications to make it better at shooting down missiles only The difference with an Iskander however and especially an Iskander-M is that it can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot.
> The difference with an Iskander however and especially an Iskander-M is that it can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot. Then we would be seeing more failed interceptions, which isn't the case. Ukraine just doesn't have the number of AA systems, positioning of AA systems, ammunition, early warning systems, and radar coverage to ever achieve anything near 100% interception rate of ballistic missiles even if patriots were 100% accurate which obviously no AA system is. The same applies to Russia. Sometimes with ATACMS strikes we see failed interceptions, sometimes we see successful interceptions of some but not all missiles, sometimes we see no attempt at interceptions. There are a million factors that come into play. Many missile experts in the west have pointed to the universal difficulty of intercepting ballistic missiles as evidence that the hypersonic cruise missile arms race is idiotic, even ignoring their issues and limitations.
>Then we would be seeing more failed interceptions, which isn't the case. Ukraine just doesn't have the number of AA systems, The Iskander can indeed manoeuvre (as can ATACAMS), which makes the interception much more difficult - but not impossible.
Yes, my point was that we have no evidence or data showing specifically how effective Iskander's maneuverability is vs patriots so the claim should not be made with such absolute confidence. The user I responded to specifically claimed that Iskanders "can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot" which may or may not be true, but I think we can all agree we've never seen evidence of it. **Generally speaking**, when we see Iskander hits there is zero attempt at interception. This doesn't really have anything to do with maneuverability. More likely, it means that Russia targeted an area without coverage or Ukraine failed to track the missile.
>Generally speaking, when we see Iskander hits there is zero attempt at interception. Zero attempt that's visible from the edited cuts of the impact. You have no idea if there were any interception attempts or not just from those clips... EDIT: The guy blocked me and ran away after I proved him wrong with his own words. Pro UA absolutely mentally shattered, so fragile nowadays.
What do you propose then? Should we make random claims based on evidence that isn’t shown in the videos?
>Should we make random claims based on evidence that isn’t shown in the videos? Isn't that exactly what you are doing?
No, but it seems pro-RU are awfully interested in deflecting from my simple observation that the original guy claimed: > The difference with an Iskander however and especially an Iskander-M is that it can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot. Despite having no evidence. I said this claim "may or may not be true." Perhaps your translator isn't working correctly.
No, I propose you don't declare that "when we see Iskander hits there is zero attempt at interception" when such interceptions would be out of the scope of those videos in the first place. It would be more accurate to say that when we see Iskander hits we can't see possible interceptions.
> scope of those videos If it’s outside the scope of the videos, is that something we see or something we don’t see?
We don't see it, which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to claim there is zero attempt at interception. How would you know there's zero attempt?
It's something that doesn't fit in your head obviously lol
Let's put it this way, some evidence can't really be shown or even captured on video. But it doesn't mean it's not out there, right?
Why not? I’ve seen multiple videos of s-300/s-400 successfully and unsuccessfully attempting to intercept ATACMS.
We've seen evidence that the PAC-3 Patriot can shoot down Kinzhal (which is a version of Iskander) - but we've seen only one such case verified. We've also seen that Russian systems can shoot down ATACMS - again, as far as I know, in only one verified case. Generally speaking, you are right - both sides try to use those expensive missiles in areas where there is no anti-ballistic missile defence. However, both the Iskanders and ATACMS seem capable of penetrating such defence if used in numers.
Weak evidence, I'd say
We’ve indirectly seen S-400 intercept multiple ATACMS in the video where the s-400 battery in Crimea was deleted by the surviving ATACMS. IIRC there were 5 ATACMS shot, at least 6 interceptions fired, and one successful hit killing the entire battery. Khinzals are just kind of a pointless missile and one of the things experts point to when arguing that the hypersonic arms race is foolish. Hypersonic cruise missiles like the Khinzal create so much heat due to their speed they are actually easier to track than many other missiles (for countries with modern AA systems anyway). In addition, they slow down significantly as they drop altitude. The first time a patriot intercepted a khinzal it was estimated to be traveling under Mach 2. Meanwhile ballistic missiles are readily available, cheapish to produce (ATACMS only cost like $600k), and can reliability penetrate every current AA system under the right circumstances.
> Hypersonic cruise missiles like the Khinzal Kinzhal is not a cruise missile, It is ballistic missile. Basically an iskander with some modifications straped on a mig-31
You can say that both the Kinzhal/Iskander and the ATACMS can reliably penetrate anti-ballistic missile defences if used in numbers (though Kinzhal looks more difficult to stop). Such missiles are enormously useful, if for no other reason then because they can strike a target jn a few minutes. If you have an info on a Su-27 parked in an air base it's better to use a ballistic missile that takes five minutes to fly there than a cruise missile that takes an hour.
> You can say that both the Kinzhal/Iskander and the ATACMS can reliably penetrate anti-ballistic missile defences if used in numbers (though Kinzhal looks more difficult to stop). This is reasonable. Although worth noting that the numbers required to successfully penetrate the air defense of say, Moscow or Washington, might be unrealistic. Or maybe not. Every country is super secretive about its ABM capabilities as such developments have long been considered an act of aggression given MAD.
"Then we would be seeing more failed interceptions, which isn't the case." ORLY? And how many so called failed interception you have saw? How many succsessful interceptions you have saw? Correct = 0. You are talking out of your ass, because you have no real raw data at all. Stop pretending to have knowledge and understanding about things you obviously have no clue.
> ORLY? And how many so called failed interception you have saw? That is my exact point, nobody has ever seen a failed interception of a Iskander by a patriot and yet people still claim the Iskander can out-maneuver intercepting missiles causing them to fail. How can people make that claim if we've never seen it done successfully?
Are you kidding me? What kind of logic is that? The first claim is not what the Iskander can or what the Iskander can not. The first claim is what your patriot can. You have to prove what it can, not i have to falsify it. And guess what? Raytheon is such an amateurish and corrupt part of the anglosaxon MIC, they were even unable to intercept a simple free falling SCUD with their first Patriot iteration. And they came with the excuse, that the so called Patriot System was never developed against ballistic missiles.
No, you are confused. The first post asked if patriots can intercept Iskanders. The first reply stated that Iskanders "can maneuver to avoid interception from AA like the Patriot." No proof was provided for this claim. In my reply, I stated that if this claim is true its surprising we haven't seen evidence of it. > And guess what? Raytheon is such an amateurish and corrupt part of the anglosaxon MIC, they were even unable to intercept a simple free falling SCUD with their first Patriot iteration. Were you expecting this to hurt my feelings or something? In 1991 Raytheon deployed the world's first ever anti-ballistic missile system and it ended up in some cases failing to hit or in other cases hitting but failing to destroy. There were also many successful interceptions. This isn't a big secret lol. > And they came with the excuse, that the so called Patriot System was never developed against ballistic missiles. Uh... That seems like a really good excuse lol
"The worlds first anti ballistic missile system" I see, you are disconnected from the reality. The typicall murica stronk kid.
That was a really weird thing to get upset about lol > The typicall murica stronk kid. America's power isn't inherent, it was just ahead of the game realizing that immigration beats xenophobia every day of week. Take for example SVR Director Sergey Naryshkin who recently complained that the USA has turned Russia and its allies into, in his own words: > "forced donors of intellectual capital" How is a country like Russia ever going to be ahead of the world in technology when its been turned into a forced donor of intellectual capital?
Nobody is upset. I can't take you serious as persons anymore.
> What kind of logic is that? Err, Solid..? 'We have no data so cannot conclude either way'
Oh definitely the problem is Ukraine doesnt have enough AA to even attempt to defend against attacks like this across all the country. I am just responding to the question of if the Patriot has the ability to stop these missiles. That being that it can but also the Iskander has it's own defences against interception.
Hypersonic missiles were understood to be the answer to ABM systems back in the late 1960's when hypersonic tech was first being developed. This was seen as a destabilizing development (a shorter window to detect an attack would put strategic missiles on a hair trigger). The Soviets and US both wanted to avoid this outcome, so they signed the ABM treaty in 1972. While it is true that nobody has a full understanding of the other side's defense capabilities, it's not that expensive to develop manoeuverable glide vehicles, and doing so offers some insurance against an enemy making a breakthrough with missile defense. Defenses will get better, and hypersonics will evolve too. Once Bush walked away from the ABM treaty, this new arms race became inevitable. While hypersonic weapons are hotter, their plasma cloud interferes with radar. For these weapons you would trade off IR detection over radar any day.
It's not a race if the other side doesn't participate
The US has hypersonic missiles, hypersonic interceptors (Arrow series), and has conducted successful hypersonic aircraft flights. Even back in 2004 the x-43a hit a top speed of Mach 9.6 and it had “full aerodynamic capability.” Hypersonic interceptor missiles make a lot of sense, but hypersonic cruise missiles really don’t bring much to the table. Ballistic missiles have basically always been hypersonic, but so far most claims of maneuverability at hypersonic speed have not been proven.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most air-defense systems are a lot better at shooting down targets that flight at a steady trajectory, and speed, like a cruise missile. Iskander is a ballistic missile, with a ballistic trajectory, and possibly even able to perform evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase.
> possibly even able to perform evasive maneuvers in the terminal phase. Certainly able to perform evasive manoeuvres in the terminal phase - just not radical ones. It's an aeroballistic missile.
Small changes in the direction of a ballistic missile mean big shift for the interception point. The ballistic missile does this a few times and the interceptors become slow / energy deprived.
True, that is why shooting down even aeroballistic missiles (let alone hypersonics capable of radical course changes) is so difficult.
In theory? Yes. In the reality with a high probablity? Nope. The Iskander is a hypersonic missile, flying at \~50km altitude on a very flat semiballistic trajectory with 2.1-2.7km/s and changing the directions and then diving down with 90° on the target. Plus it has penetration aids like jammers and decoys. And one word on the semiballistic trajectory: It is less efficient regarding the energy, because the ballistic trajectory is the most efficient trajectory per definition. Plus you have less drag outside the atmosphere. I think as a normal ballistic missile the Iskander has around 1000km range. And the even more advanced and air launched Kinzhal the claimed 2000km with a normal ballistic trajectory. But: The horizontal speed on the flat semiballistic trajectory is way bigger, so you reach your target faster. Plus it is very hard to intercept targets on the edge of the space in very thin atmosphere but not in the space. You can't use kill vehicle for exo atmospheric intercepts and not normal interceptors, maneuvering with aerodynamic drag. See here also what Ted Postol said about the so called israeli "Iron Dome" and how it failed to intercept the Iranian ballistic missiles: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r5ZHrugoe4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r5ZHrugoe4) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZJb0dWHho](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIZJb0dWHho)
Iskandr-Ms take additional maneuvers I believe, which throw off any anti-ballistic missile system. The patriot is a rather dated and now ineffective and disgustingly over priced system, especially compared to the S-400,. s-500 and s-550 systems. America has always relied on 1) their very good and significant air force and 2) fighting enemies that have absolutely no threat to their air force or any air power of their own American strategic ability since the uni-polar moment has been all hubris and zero common sense.
It's difficult to shoot down missiles especially ballistic one's.Shooting down aircraft is easy.
No.
Most surface to air missile have the capacity to intercept any flying threat, like drones, missiles or planes. Patriot can lock and fire at an Iskander, hitting it may be slightly more difficult than hitting an aircraft
Not an expert but I believe shooting down missile is easier than shooting aircraft. I think there is not many Patriot or any other AD system available in Ukraine, and they have to protect many places. A city like Kyiv alone probably need 4-5 batteries.
It is harder to shoot an iskander than a plane. The iskander is faster and smaller.
There are lots of factors to consider of course.. What aircraft / missile are we talking about? Iskander is smaller but it is not that small, it is 7 m long object. Speed is not really a decisive factor, it can be easily calculated. Again, there are many factors, but if we compare "the best aircraft at one time" vs "the best missile at the same time" especially modern times, aircraft would win / harder to shoot down as it can carry more means to defeat AD. The simplest way is modern aircraft would know if it is been targeted, then start using various ways to evade / defeat the incoming missile. So far AFAIK there is no missile with this capability.
speed is a big factor in interception, think of trying to shoot a bullet with another bullet. if the bullet has been fired out of a rifle or tossed in the air by hand, which is easier to hit? being able to calculate speed is not enough, you have to hit it with an interceptor. the faster the missile, the faster, more agile, and more precise the interceptor has to be. not easy missiles like iskander also carry and deploy countermeasures
If we're using "manual" shot, then yes. But computerized-calculated shot, along with blast frag "bullets" (think shotgun), then it becomes much easier. But yes, I believe speed is still a factor in terms of "times of detection", e.g when you try to intercept something like Kinzhal, you better do it fast or else it already fly outside of missile / interceptor range. I heard F-35 has sensor that can detect radar wave before it is being detected. So it can simply fly outside the radar, plus its stealthy features, remains undetected, thus won't even be shot upon at the first place,
You've stated a common misconception about digital tracking and interceptor systems. There are two challenges that need to be considered: 1. At some point the digital needs to become "physical". Say your computer has calculated the location, trajectories and execution sequence perfectly. Time to fire the rocket engine. How precise is it's fire timing? How precise is the acceleration rate? How quickly do the control surfaces respond to updated settings to correct course? There is always some margin of error between where the computer wants the rocket to be and where the rocket is. At mach 4.5 just 20ms of lead or lag would put you 27m off target. That's just 20ms of slow launch, delayed power up/down, delayed control surfaces response, or an other combination of issues. 2. The environment creates both sensor noise and control issues that aren't relevant in isolation but can add up to a significant degradation in capabilities. Again a loss of live tracking or effective control for a dynamic target for milliseconds will allow it to potentially move far outside the probable hit window.
> If we're using "manual" shot, then yes. But computerized-calculated shot, along with blast frag "bullets" (think shotgun), then it becomes much easier. Suppose an object moving at a speed of Mach 6 (the speed of the ballistic version of Iskander) is at a distance of 30 kilometers and you need 1 millisecond for calculations (a very optimistic assumption), then while you are doing calculations the missile will already fly more than two meters, and given that it is constantly changing direction and speed and given that each of your anti-missiles has only one attempt, interception becomes a lottery with minimal chances. Remember the video from Kiev when Patriot tried to shoot down the only Kinzhal or Iskander ? Apparently it failed, and spent about 10 anti-missiles, each costing more than Iskander or Kinzhal.
You don’t really know what you are talking about. Ballistics missiles are WAY harder to shoot down than aircraft’s. First of all many ballistic missiles, including short and medium range ballistic missiles, DO perform evasive maneuvers in their terminal phase ie when they reenter the atmosphere, and when they enter they are traveling at hypersonic speeds, possibly Mach 8 to 10 (don’t confuse it with so-called hypersonic missiles, which fly in suppressed trajectories). Ballistic missiles can also release decoys when they reenter the atmosphere, those are designed to mimic the radar signature of the missile and travel at the same speed as the missile when they are released due to simple physics, so it’s a challenge to distinguish which one is the real missile. Second speed IS a decisive factor. Not that many radars can track objects flying at Mach 8 to 10, and your interceptor missile is also traveling above Mach 3. So that’s a > Mach 10 relative speed there. The slightest error in the interceptors orientation or the delay in tracking will result in a miss. That is why the US developed the Patriot PAC3 with a specialized interceptor equipped with a Ku-band active radar seeker for high prevision tracking of the missile and many miniature pulse rockets that can be fired to perform miniature adjustments on the interceptors orientation to ensure a hit. Whereas they still use semi active radar homing for Patriot 2s. And Soviets developed the S-300V series also specialized in intercepting ballistic missiles while they already have S-300P series for general air defense. Every nation developed SAMs capable of shooting aircraft’s first before they manage to develop a SAM capable of intercepting ballistic missiles. Wouldn’t make sense if missiles are easier to intercept would it? And finally, just because aircraft’s can perform evasive maneuvers doesn’t mean they can survive, it entirely depends on the speed of the aircraft and the energy state of the missile. That’s why there’s something called a minimum abort range (MAR) for missiles. As long as the missile is fast enough (has enough energy) and has a lock maintained on you, the plane is in big trouble. And missiles like 40N6E and HQ-9s have active seeker heads, so they can’t be easily jammed either
As for size, it has way less surface area to hit, and way less critical system area. So statistically less likely to be shutdown with same precision as a plane. Look up the surface area of a su27, you will be surprised. As for speed.. it absolutely is a decisive factor A radar need to track the target with enough precision in order to hit it. This essentially means knowing where it will be in the future and calculations need to be made for interception. Then corrections need to be constantly sent to the missiles, unless active. But the radar returns only tell you where it was, with some error, innthe past, and tou only have so many returns per second, assuming your radar is pulse Doppler . Your error rate means that being the same amount of time before or after the target is where you predicted affects the distance at interception, so thisbis the difference between success and failure, subsonic va high supersonic. Also, if the proximity fuze works in the interceptor but the interceptor is behind, the blast/now needs to intercept the missile (hit it).
Russia does have a cruise missile that will deploy flairs. But I've no idea if that is an active defense or just programmed to deploy once coming into range of known AD. If I had to guess off the videos I've seen it is more programmed to do as it approaches its final destination.
But way more predictable and usualy doesn't have counter measures.
Surprisingly it's the opposite. Most AA missiles use 'annular blast fragmentation warheads', where the the tiny fragments (usually tungsten) are shot at high speeds in circular pattern (it's an evolution of the idea behind old Talos continuous rod warhead). Most ballistic missiles consist mostly of empty space (where fuel was) or the explosives (insensitive to fragments), making them surprisingly resistant to fragmentation warheads. Planes, on the other hand, are filled with fragile and highly sensitive (and squishy, in case of a pilot) components.
I could be wrong of course, but my way of thinking is: * Aircraft has more countermeasures. * Aircraft would know and actively "fight back" using its countermeasures, maneuvers etc while missile.. well, don't, it just keep flying at the pre-determined course.
Everything you said is correct but yheres 2 main issues here. Aircraft are very fragile which is why frag warheads are so dangerous against them the SAM missile doesn’t need to hit the Aircraft directly but hitting them with shrapnel even if just a few is enough to cause an Aircraft to fall out of the sky. Ballistic missiles on the other hand are brutes and can get with multiple shrapnel warheads and still hit mark. Its like trying to stop a speeding truck with an AK. secondly ballistic missiles are much much faster than Aircraft so most S systems only have a small window to intercept others there missiles will not be able to hit the Ballistics
It's way more easier to shoot down a jet fighter than a missile generally speaking. Timing is the most important factor for countermeasure effectiveness, making velocity a better option to survive
somehow the zionist terrorists took all islamist iran terrorist missiles in last volley out. doubt that they would keep patriots around, since they don't get many aircraft attacks. just my speculation.
Many still got through. In that case, There was too large of a distance with many western air defenses and other western assets in the way protecting IS.Iran also warned US about their attack many days ago to let them prepare and the missiles they used were also older one's.
the "many" through getting happened where was no patriot coverage. although i agree with you that the latest iskander software update makes it virtually immune to patriots. that's why zionists donating em
Patriot PAC3s are DEFINITELY capable of shooting down an Iskander M missile. Patriot 2 variants should have that capability as well. Gulf War era Patriot 1s, not so much, they aren’t designed with engaging ballistic missiles in mind. But you should not assume they have Patriot batteries around this airfield. They only have 1 Patriot PAC3 battery guarding their capital, and 2 to 3 Patriot 2 batteries deployed elsewhere. They are probably getting additional batteries soon or have already received additional ones, but they certainly don’t have enough batteries to cover the whole country. Or the missiles for intercepting every incoming threat
Need to move aircraft around Kiev or Lviv and the gap of respond gonna take hours for counterattack etc idk event there are safe ?
Not really.. The thing with the current way of AD work (missile shooting missile / drone / aircraft) is that it can be saturated easily. Imagine sending 100 Shahed / Geranium to an airport at once (very feasible, even 200 - 300 is feasible), the AD probably shoot 50 of them and the rest will still causing havoc. Even if there is enough missile, there is probably not enough time to reload.
Thanks u are right , but doesn’t look like the case single spy/ reconnaissance + iskander making so much damage . Cuz when Ukraine showdown any drone or missile they like to put in big pictures all around with X
shahed probably cant be accurate enough to target a single aircraft, and they dont have enough payload for cluster warheads, so they probably wouldn't be effective to attack an airfield and would likely miss the targets. Remember that UA drones are accurate because they are controlled in fpv mode on final approach through starlink
Why aren't there more hardened aircraft hangars in this war? I thought the Soviet Union was serious about defence, and expected former Soviet countries to have those.
Look at the airbases closer to the iron curtain. These back bases were build to be used after a nuclear strike.
Back during the era of the Cold War while hardened hangers were used, a lot of the storage still is out on the tarmac, especially for airframes that are going to be used. But as the other guy mentioned, as you get closer to the former borders with the west, the airfields that are either still used or haven’t been demolished have hardened hangers. https://preview.redd.it/msqmxfeo47ad1.jpeg?width=1290&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bceddd29329f58d0c778a7ec2c73ad95c50ef4cb Example: Haapsalu Air Base The former Soviet airbase located in Kiltsi, Estonia was used as an interceptor base for the 425th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO. They likely had them hardened as it would be one of the first bases to likely get hit if the war went hot.
Thank you. Yes, that makes sense, and that base seems well built.
Russia has done more de-communizing in 2 years than Ukraine did in 30.
What UAV is Russia using to penetrate this deep? Also why didn't this proliferate sooner?
Was just about to ask this!
[удалено]
You mean repost? Sorry, didn't know
so for 2 years theyve been using that airbase with impunity? So much so that they got comfortable enough to keep a dozen active airframes in there?
An iskander for a single helicopter? I didn't even see any damage on the helicopter.
Its a cluster warhead. That heli is swiss cheese.
i think thats a trade they would take any time, heli is probly worth $10M, the Iskander probly like 500k-1M
an old mi24 is worth nowhere near 10m.
To produce or to purchase? To purchase good luck finding one. Not that money is a problem nowadays.
its value in general
Cluster warhead. Shrapnel turned that helicopter into a colander