Ukraine

[malchior]

It's just a ballistic missile. Essentially all ballistic missiles are hypersonic. It has a shorter range than the Tomahawk. If we wanted to build a ballistic Tomahawk we could but apparently no one sees the value. Still they really have only used it to blow up a shopping mall. Probably because they didn't have any cruise missiles left or artillery close enough to do it otherwise.

[malchior]

[Carpet_pissr]

In Soviet Russia, hearts (poison) attack you!

[Max Peck]

Lots of people probably have heart attacks immediately following defenestration.

[Daehawk]

Some other high ranked advisor quit and left Russia in protest of the war.

[Carpet_pissr]

Lots of people probably have heart attacks immediately following defenestration.

LOL

[stessier]

It's just a ballistic missile. Essentially all ballistic missiles are hypersonic. It has a shorter range than the Tomahawk. If we wanted to build a ballistic Tomahawk we could but apparently no one sees the value. Still they really have only used it to blow up a shopping mall. Probably because they didn't have any cruise missiles left or artillery close enough to do it otherwise.

The special part is it can navigate. It's a pretty cool engineering trick.

[Unagi]

Some other high ranked advisor quit and left Russia in protest of the war.

Thanks for the entirely vague update.

How do high ranking advisers ‘quit and leave Russia’? That’s not a thing.

[Unagi]

It's just a ballistic missile. Essentially all ballistic missiles are hypersonic. It has a shorter range than the Tomahawk. If we wanted to build a ballistic Tomahawk we could but apparently no one sees the value. Still they really have only used it to blow up a shopping mall. Probably because they didn't have any cruise missiles left or artillery close enough to do it otherwise.

The special part is it can navigate. It's a pretty cool engineering trick.

Technically speaking that should keep it from being called simply ‘ballistic’
It’s a quasi-guided quasi-ballistic missile.


It’s use implied they needed accuracy and had no cheaper way, as it was tactically overkill.

[malchior]

Some other high ranked advisor quit and left Russia in protest of the war.

Thanks for the entirely vague update.

How do high ranking advisers ‘quit and leave Russia’? That’s not a thing.

It was an oligarch named Anatoly Chubais. He was an adviser to Putin and essentially a diplomat. And he is no angel. In fact and a "fun fact" this whole thing is his fucking fault. Why? Pull up a chair and hear a quick tale.

At one time Chubais was part of the original oligarch class. In fact, he is pretty much grandfather kleptocrat. He helped set up the privatization scheme that allowed him and the original cast of oligarchs to pick apart the old Soviet State and keep it all for themselves. He was the one who recommended/gave Putin the job overseeing that scheme. That was how Putin built his secret wealth and used the rewarding of kleptocratic sourced wealth to build his power base. Eventually Putin purged most of those oligarchs except for good old Anatoly Chubais and kept him around. No one really knows why.

The fact that Anatoly Chubais left probably isn't because of some aversion to what is happening in Ukraine. It is because it cost him money and/or he probably doesn't think he'd survive the trouble that is coming the oligarch's way. He made noise about how he didn't agree with Putin's imperial ambitions and blah blah. I don't believe it for a second. He heard Putin's comments about traitors living in the west, heard the wind blowing, and he decided it was time to exit stage left. He better keep an eye on his tea supply.

[Unagi]

I’m going to assume that when he left Russia , he was already not in Russia.
Is that right?

[malchior]

I’m going to assume that when he left Russia , he was already not in Russia.
Is that right?

No. There isn't confirmation he actually left the country or where he is at all. Though a Russian official acknowledged it and said leaving was up to him. The guy is quite wealthy, has the means to leave, he has his bullshit story to trade on, and he has survived amongst these wolves for decades. Still who knows if he will actually get out or not. Nor should any of us care IMO. Fuck Anatoly Chubais.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's just a ballistic missile. Essentially all ballistic missiles are hypersonic. It has a shorter range than the Tomahawk. If we wanted to build a ballistic Tomahawk we could but apparently no one sees the value. Still they really have only used it to blow up a shopping mall. Probably because they didn't have any cruise missiles left or artillery close enough to do it otherwise.

It's not just a ballistic missile. Is it a hypersonic cruise missile. The range factor is mitigated by the fact that it's air launched. Which is also a limitation but, tradeoffs.



And we've certainly been trying to build one but LMT has been sucking.

(Bloomberg) -- U.S. efforts to catch up with China and Russia in developing hypersonic weapons may be set back after Lockheed Martin Corp.’s air-launched missile suffered three consecutive test failures that left it on a tight schedule.

That’s put in doubt the Pentagon’s goal to declare it America’s first combat-ready hypersonic weapon and approve initial production by Sept. 30.

China and Russia have conducted test launches and fielded their versions of the new weapons, which can travel five times the speed of sound and maneuver in flight like a cruise missile, making them harder to detect and shoot down.

The U.S. weapon faces several hurdles in a development phase now expected to cost at least $1.4 billion before it can be found to have “early operation capability.”

[Unagi]

I’m thinking of my strategy in Civ games, when I suddenly have the next tier in modern weaponry that my historic adversaries don’t yet have.

[Holman]

The "next-gen missiles vs big ships" threat was a big topic a few years ago when the Chinese were developing carrier-killer hypersonics.

Is there still no counter for them (assuming they can be detected far enough out)?

A land army can spread itself out, but navies concentrate billions of dollars of target into a few hundred square yards. (I'm reminded of WW1 British admiral John Jellicoe, who defended his characteristic caution by pointing out that he was the only man who could lose the war in a day.)

[malchior]

It's just a ballistic missile. Essentially all ballistic missiles are hypersonic. It has a shorter range than the Tomahawk. If we wanted to build a ballistic Tomahawk we could but apparently no one sees the value. Still they really have only used it to blow up a shopping mall. Probably because they didn't have any cruise missiles left or artillery close enough to do it otherwise.

It's not just a ballistic missile. Is it a hypersonic cruise missile. The range factor is mitigated by the fact that it's air launched. Which is also a limitation but, tradeoffs.

Sorta. It is air launched but it has to fire in a ballistic trajectory using a rocket motor to reach the hypersonic speeds. Nothing can accelerate to those speeds in lower atmosphere. So as far as I've read it is fired stand off, turns up ballistically, accelerates at top using a scram jet (the supposed magic), and eventually has to turn off the scramjet, and arcs towards the target. It certainly makes it very difficult to knock down but it allegedly steers like any ballistic missile in the lower atmosphere. A lot of smart folks think it's a bit overblown. It is literally built off the same ground launched version. Here is one take.

And we've certainly been trying to build one but LMT has been sucking.

Fair enough though again a few folks I read don't think this is any sort of key capability. History is littered with all sorts of "super important weapons system" that ended up not being all that important in the end. Is it more flexible than rolling the Iskander-M system around. Sure. It doesn't preclude the availability of something else that still can do the same job. But realistic caution about whether we'll be left behind would not earn the defense contractor tons of money to accelerate the project. But guess we should just worry about our hypersonic gap.

[malchior]

The "next-gen missiles vs big ships" threat was a big topic a few years ago when the Chinese were developing carrier-killer hypersonics.

Is there still no counter for them (assuming they can be detected far enough out)?

They're working on anti-ballistic missile systems for carriers and theoretically have plans to target their launch sites in the case of war. It is one reason why the Kinzhal is potentially sort of interesting. You roughly have to enlarge the threat radius ~1200 KM for any plane as it applies to ships. They are also nuclear capable but again this is because they are similar to the ground based ballistic missiles they are based on. It is mostly an existing threat. It is why every article you'll read will say 'some US military officials' because there potentially isn't any real consensus it is actually a problem.

Edit: I sort of also remember reading the Burkes have an ECM system that fires canisters that'll emit a radar signature approximating a carrier return. The idea is that the terminal guidance on one of these things is radar based. The Russian and Chinese systems are believed to be essentially a glide weapon on the descent so they can't steer too far off the original targeting. Obviously a lot of uncertainty there and we don't know the good stuff.

[Isgrimnur]

SM-6 Can Now Kill Both Cruise AND Ballistic Missiles (2015)

In a series of tests announced yesterday, the Aegis destroyer USS John Paul Jones fired three of the latest variants of Raytheon’s Standard Missile, the SM-6 Dual I. The SM-6 is an agile, long-range weapon that uses the same seeker as the AMRAAM air-to-air missile to engage enemy cruise missiles and aircraft. But the Dual I upgrade adds a new, more powerful processor that runs more sophisticated targeting software. That software lets the SM-6 identify, track, and kill something descending from the upper atmosphere at extreme speed — specifically, a ballistic missile warhead.

So on July 28th, the Missile Defense Agency launched “a short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) target” over the Pacific. The John Paul Jones launched an SM-6 Dual I and destroyed the target. Then, in two subsequent tests on July 31st and August 1st, SM-6 Dual Is also shot down two different kinds of cruise missile.

US Navy Destroyers And Royal Navy Ships Use These Big Blow-Up Anti-Ship Missile Decoys (2019)

The U.S. Navy's Arleigh Burke-class destroyers have a comprehensive suite of defenses to shield against anti-ship missiles, including chaff canisters, active decoys that generate confusing electromagnetic signatures, electronic warfare suites, and “hard kill” close-in weapon systems. But they also have the ability to launch passive radar-reflecting decoys that inflate like a huge, oddly-shaped beach ball to entice incoming missiles, a system that came by way of the United Kingdom. Now, the U.K. Royal Navy, which was first to adopt these decoys, is looking to buy an improved design as it looks to expand its global reach.

[malchior]

Thanks as always Isgrimnur. Your precision is far better than my hazy recollections about what other smarter people said.

[Isgrimnur]

Glad to share. Your hazy memory sparked my interest to go looking.

[Max Peck]

It seems to me that the important thing here, regarding the Kinzhal, is that known Russia-fluffer Clint Ehrlich has a sad because now that people have seen it in action, some of them aren't all that impressed with what they've seen. But maybe that's just because they may not have actually seen it in action yet.

We Have Questions About Russia's Claimed Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile Use In Ukraine (Updated)

The Russian Ministry of Defense released a video early Saturday that it claimed showed a Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile hitting a Ukrainian missile warehouse about 300 miles southwest of Kyiv. The strike, if it did occur, would represent both the first known use of the Kinzhal in combat and yet another Russian attack on facilities in western Ukraine near the country's borders with multiple NATO members. But there are elements of Russia's claims that don't quite add up and the implications of the use of Kinzhal in the conflict are limited, regardless.

The claimed target was an underground missile storage facility in Delyatyn, Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast. A quick check of maps shows the Delyatyn base on the north side of the Carpathian Mountains, close to Ukraine’s borders with Romania and Hungary. Delyatyn fits the bill for a missile or ammunition storage facility, with bunkers built into terrain and away from built-up civilian areas.

The War Zone hasn't yet been able to geolocate the supposed target using commercial satellite imagery that matches what is seen in the video, which appears more like a large above-ground warehouse or barn. There’s also a distinct lack of secondary explosions as one would expect when rocket fuel and explosives cook-off. It’s still possible a Kinzhal hit the base, but the video is suspect at a minimum.

We can now say for certain that the strike depicted happened nowhere near the western part of the country and not at some major military weapons storage area. It happened at a heavily bombarded rural area in the far eastern area of Ukraine

In satellite imagery The War Zone obtained from Planet Labs, you can clearly see the farm featured in the video. It was partially destroyed by the time the image was taken, on March 12th, 2022, a week before this video was released and news of Kinzhal's use was distributed

A wide-area view showing just how battered by artillery fire this area is has been. The farm is in the lower right corner.

This also answers our question as to the UAV's presence above the target area. The anti-air threat is nothing in Ukraine's east as it is in the west. This also calls into question, even more, why a missile of Kinzhal's nature would be used on a target close to Russian territory and on what appears to be a farm's barn or large chicken coop.

With all this in mind, it is very unlikely we are seeing a Kinzhal missile being used in the video. Whether or not one was used at all, we cannot answer that. Maybe there was another target somewhere, but this was not it.

[malchior]

Another thing to consider is the supposed killer use case for a hypersonic weapon is first strike at the onset of a conflict. The Russians had a brand new toy and could show it to the world...but didn't. Instead they might have fired one weeks into the conflict for seemingly no real reason.

[Zaxxon]

Uhh, yes ya did, bud.

[Daehawk]

Russian soldiers so cold they're wearing womens clothes.

[Holman]

Re: Biden's "The Bombing Starts in Five Minutes" moment. (There's a deep cut for us Cold War kids.)

It's almost certainly a case of Biden getting worked up and going off message, but it's also something that needed to be said. In the aftermath, it's possible to have it both ways: the aides can scramble to clarify the official stance while everyone everywhere knows that it's true all the same.

It's not like it reveals anything. Putin already knows exactly what we think of his regime, and he knows that our choices will be driven by grand-strategic policy rather than slips of the tongue.

[Jaymann]

Re: Biden's "The Bombing Starts in Five Minutes" moment. (There's a deep cut for us Cold War kids.)

It's almost certainly a case of Biden getting worked up and going off message, but it's also something that needed to be said. In the aftermath, it's possible to have it both ways: the aides can scramble to clarify the official stance while everyone everywhere knows that it's true all the same.

It's not like it reveals anything. Putin already knows exactly what we think of his regime, and he knows that our choices will be driven by grand-strategic policy rather than slips of the tongue.

Isn't that what Reagan said when he thought the mic was off?

[Holman]

Isn't that what Reagan said when he thought the mic was off?

Yes.

[malchior]

It's not like it reveals anything. Putin already knows exactly what we think of his regime, and he knows that our choices will be driven by grand-strategic policy rather than slips of the tongue.

It doesn't reveal anything but it still was a mistake. It dilutes the impact of what otherwise was a fine speech because everyone is focused on the ending. It gives Putin outs at home so uttering it might have even been counterproductive. Time will tell if it was a huge mistake or small one but IMO a clear and completely unnecessary mistake it was.

Another thing that tangentially that was revealed is that anyone pointing out it was a mistake last night was shouted down by the Twitter masses. In fact, so many are saying it wasn't even 'a gaffe'. As if we didn't see several indications his administration was scrambling to clarify it within minutes. Why? Because no US President ever called for implied regime change in Russia or the Soviet Union. Ever.

It is really worrying to see the sides hardening around any specter of criticizing the President. You can disagree that it was a mistake without many of the bad faith arguments I saw last night. Not everyone pointing out the flaws is some right-wing turd taking glee at pointing out a mistake.

[Carpet_pissr]

I really dislike the argument that something was a mistake because ‘precedent’.

I think it must be a pet peeve, because I called it out several times when the media would do the same with Trump. So many legit, powerful reasons why the shitty things he did were shitty, but that’s the argument? Because it’s outside the box or unusual?

FWIW I’m ambivalent about whether or not it was a mistake. Maybe lean ‘mistake’ a bit bc of the help it could give Putin domestically as you said.

Pearl clutching aside, it probably struck a chord in the Twitterverse bc Biden ran on being President Stability. This remark is potentially destabilizing, and smacks of the kind of rash outbursts that Trump would constantly make.

I’m sure there was no dearth of people saying ‘if Trump had said this…!’

[malchior]

I really dislike the argument that something was a mistake because ‘precedent’.

It isn't the precedent as much as the scope of what it implies. The call back is to put in reference that despite the many terrible things the Soviet Union did and threatened we never once argued that we might change their leadership. The reason? Nuclear weapons. That is why so many people reacted strongly and why the Russian response being muted says a lot. Everyone knows the stakes here.

I think it must be a pet peeve, because I called it out several times when the media would do the same with Trump. So many legit, powerful reasons why the shitty things he did were shitty, but that’s the argument? Because it’s outside the box or unusual?

I don't know - norms matter. If you are shattering norms, the actions deserve to be analyzed to determine whether they are for good, bad, or don't matter. With Trump it was almost always bad and deserved this treatment.

FWIW I’m ambivalent about whether or not it was a mistake. Maybe lean ‘mistake’ a bit bc of the help it could give Putin domestically as you said.

Pearl clutching aside, it probably struck a chord in the Twitterverse bc Biden ran on being President Stability. This remark is potentially destabilizing, and smacks of the kind of rash outbursts that Trump would constantly make.

I’m sure there was no dearth of people saying ‘if Trump had said this…!’

Good point. I hadn't read that into comments. It was more in my mind 'did our President just threaten a nuclear power with regime change that risks nuclear war'. Still the stability President angle tracks. I didn't see much from the right other than calling him a war monger or reckless.

FWIW, this whole thing could be the result of one of the many problems with having leaders this old. Older folks tend to have worse impulse control in general. I don't know if that is what happened but I can't say it isn't. I've said it before but I am generally unhappy about the fact that older generations who got us into all these messes simply won't let go of the reins. There is a balance where experience is overcome by diminishing capacity. It strikes me that American decline in many ways appears lock step with these leaders' physical decline.

[Carpet_pissr]

All good points, especially the first bit. I will have to stew on that.

[malchior]

Now for something completely different. Russia is a mafia state. There is no benevolent Russian oligarch. This is essentially a Capo complaining that he can't earn anymore because the police shut down his protection racket because the boss just sanctioned a gang land massacre.

[Unagi]

Lol.

Will there be cake?

I’ve not read the article (yet), but is anyone going to react sympathetically to someone who needs a driver and a cleaner… obviously not. But what a statement.

[Unagi]

Also regarding Biden and reins.
I got the impression that he was only stepping up to yank the reins out of Trumps hands. He passed on his obvious chance at the reins to give HRC a shot at it. He’s old, he knows it, and I think in this case; he took the reins a little bit reluctantly.

[malchior]

Also regarding Biden and reins.
I got the impression that he was only stepping up to yank the reins out of Trumps hands. He passed on his obvious chance at the reins to give HRC a shot at it. He’s old, he knows it, and I think in this case; he took the reins a little bit reluctantly.

I agree - it was more of a generational shot than an individual one.

[YellowKing]

I didn't see much from the right other than calling him a war monger or reckless.

A war monger? Aren't these the same people criticizing Biden for not setting up a no-fly zone? The same ones criticizing him for ruling out military involvement?

I think Biden tends to speak from the heart, and in an emotional moment he spoke from the heart. Just as he did when he off-handedly called Putin a war criminal. Mistake? Maybe. The truth that everybody is thinking? Absolutely.

And this one utterance is not going to overshadow what Biden has done already to prevent a wider war. Leading a strong NATO response while re-strengthening old alliances. Helping to implement the toughest sanctions ever leveled against a superpower. Putting China in its place before they got any bright ideas. Quietly supplying enough aid to Ukraine to give them a fighting chance. One throwaway line at the end of a speech isn't going to undo that.

[malchior]

I didn't see much from the right other than calling him a war monger or reckless.

A war monger? Aren't these the same people criticizing Biden for not setting up a no-fly zone? The same ones criticizing him for ruling out military involvement?

Yup. As expected. Take whatever he is doing and scream about it incessantly. No coherence or day to day consistency is required. They are pretty much mindless animals barking at the moon at this point.

And this one utterance is not going to overshadow what Biden has done already to prevent a wider war. Leading a strong NATO response while re-strengthening old alliances. Helping to implement the toughest sanctions ever leveled against a superpower. Putting China in its place before they got any bright ideas. Quietly supplying enough aid to Ukraine to give them a fighting chance. One throwaway line at the end of a speech isn't going to undo that.

Totally agree. He has been rock steady throughout this crisis. That is sort of why this stands out. If not for this mistake it'd be the usual barking at the moon background noise. Unfortunately, he provided ample click bait material for the 4th estate.

[Daehawk]

[malchior]

If this couldn't get any crazier. People were saying that there was a history of Russia harming negotiators. A mafia nation.

[El Guapo]

Were the Russian negotiators there without Putin's authorization? Otherwise why would Putin poison them? But why would they be there without authorization?