UA statistics is a long ago a laughing stock at Russsan military forums. While having no doubts about UA forces doing their best and considering NATO AWACS and sattelites supplied "round the clock" situation awareness, the figures of downings are inlflated. Especially considering nowadays shortage of SAMs in Ukraine.
Second thing I want to doubt is the use of RU S-300 against land targets. Indeed, Russia has thousands Soviet-era S-300 missiles of early mods, able to strike land targets as well. However, even against air targets their range do not exceed 70-80 km. In SSM mode the effective range should be cut in two. Thus, it should be 30+ km, what is compared with MLRS or long range artillery. Therefore, I do not buy story about RU S-300 hitting land targets.
"In SSM mode the effective range should be cut in two."
It is not. The ballistics is nearly the same, actually the missile needs more energy reserve to intercept an intended aerial target, while a ground target may be hit with the minimal final energy left, so the full range in surface-to-surface mode is higher. The problem was initially in accuracy: the StS mode was intended as self-defence primarily, so the battery was expected to hit moving targets like advancing mechanized columns; the necessary accuracy for this task wasn't reachable for more then 30-40km range, that's why the "passport" range described as "cut in two". Yet it's completely irrelevant if you're releasing these missiles as a quasy-strategic strike and AD-attrition tool, to hit some urban area instead of the moving target. The accuracy becomes irrelevant in this case, and you can launch the missile at it's best ballistic trajectory, consequently exceeding it's passport range for any aerial target.
Your sources - leisure forum dwellers - do know the passport data (wich are published everywhere), yet do not understand the mechanics and reasons, so their statements are usually extremely stupid.
"Yet it's completely irrelevant if you're releasing these missiles as a quasy-strategic strike and AD-attrition tool, to hit some urban area instead of the moving target. "
Right, in unguided ballistic mode the missiles could go farther, then the next question arises: what the use of shooting unguided missiles with shrapnel warhead of around 150 kg? Too small for a "weapon of terror".
Also mind, that to shoot S-300 you cannot stay at the frontline like Grad MLRS, you need to be out of range of howitzers, say, 25 km. Thus, the "depth" of the strike is getting less and less attractive. Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt ability to shoot S-300 in SS mode, just trying to illustrate its little effectiveness. And when reading about S-300 hitting deep inside Ukraine, one should realise that most likely these are remnants of UA S-300 missiles of first generation shot at Russian targets.
The statement that it's too weak to be a weapon of terror is ridiculous. With attritional or terror weapons you have to consider costs, not the WH power. The Soviet-legacy stocks have nearly negative cost, so their use as disturbing strike tools and decoys are completely rational (for those who cares little about such matters as warcrimes or long-term strategic consequences for their country).
Some S-300 missiles have passport ranges of 200km, actually more in ballistic mode without precision. That's more then enough to reach quite deep in Ukrainian rear without getting launchers too close to the frontline.
Good point on the issue of "good faith claims" Even in the era of the close dogfight in the Battle of Britain, the over reporting of shot down aircraft was considerably overstated by both sides.
To me, the use of ballistic missiles is a classic asymmetric warfare case: an attacking country may stock hundreds of ballistic missiles compared to dozens of Patriot missiles in anti-ballistic roles (both regarding cost and number of missiles).
So, the real deterrence happens when the defending country also has an adequate number of ballistic missiles to cause harm to the attacker. Unless Ukraine has a large amount of ballistic missiles able to hit within the Russian territory and against Russian military targets (launchers etc), I think that the whole fight is quite one-sided. Depending only on defensive measures is a recipe for losing the war.
UA statistics is a long ago a laughing stock at Russsan military forums. While having no doubts about UA forces doing their best and considering NATO AWACS and sattelites supplied "round the clock" situation awareness, the figures of downings are inlflated. Especially considering nowadays shortage of SAMs in Ukraine.
Second thing I want to doubt is the use of RU S-300 against land targets. Indeed, Russia has thousands Soviet-era S-300 missiles of early mods, able to strike land targets as well. However, even against air targets their range do not exceed 70-80 km. In SSM mode the effective range should be cut in two. Thus, it should be 30+ km, what is compared with MLRS or long range artillery. Therefore, I do not buy story about RU S-300 hitting land targets.
"In SSM mode the effective range should be cut in two."
It is not. The ballistics is nearly the same, actually the missile needs more energy reserve to intercept an intended aerial target, while a ground target may be hit with the minimal final energy left, so the full range in surface-to-surface mode is higher. The problem was initially in accuracy: the StS mode was intended as self-defence primarily, so the battery was expected to hit moving targets like advancing mechanized columns; the necessary accuracy for this task wasn't reachable for more then 30-40km range, that's why the "passport" range described as "cut in two". Yet it's completely irrelevant if you're releasing these missiles as a quasy-strategic strike and AD-attrition tool, to hit some urban area instead of the moving target. The accuracy becomes irrelevant in this case, and you can launch the missile at it's best ballistic trajectory, consequently exceeding it's passport range for any aerial target.
Your sources - leisure forum dwellers - do know the passport data (wich are published everywhere), yet do not understand the mechanics and reasons, so their statements are usually extremely stupid.
"Yet it's completely irrelevant if you're releasing these missiles as a quasy-strategic strike and AD-attrition tool, to hit some urban area instead of the moving target. "
Right, in unguided ballistic mode the missiles could go farther, then the next question arises: what the use of shooting unguided missiles with shrapnel warhead of around 150 kg? Too small for a "weapon of terror".
Also mind, that to shoot S-300 you cannot stay at the frontline like Grad MLRS, you need to be out of range of howitzers, say, 25 km. Thus, the "depth" of the strike is getting less and less attractive. Don't get me wrong, I do not doubt ability to shoot S-300 in SS mode, just trying to illustrate its little effectiveness. And when reading about S-300 hitting deep inside Ukraine, one should realise that most likely these are remnants of UA S-300 missiles of first generation shot at Russian targets.
The statement that it's too weak to be a weapon of terror is ridiculous. With attritional or terror weapons you have to consider costs, not the WH power. The Soviet-legacy stocks have nearly negative cost, so their use as disturbing strike tools and decoys are completely rational (for those who cares little about such matters as warcrimes or long-term strategic consequences for their country).
Some S-300 missiles have passport ranges of 200km, actually more in ballistic mode without precision. That's more then enough to reach quite deep in Ukrainian rear without getting launchers too close to the frontline.
ruzzian troll go kuddle yourself.
Fascist russia itself has long become a laughing stock throughout the world, along with its army of murderers, marauders and rapists.
And the Russian military forums themselves are a bunch of destructive ПИЗДАБОЛОВ
Only dumb assholes like you read and moreover believe in what is written in orcs so called “military forums”
Hi Adrien, thanks for your analysis and Tom for sharing. . .
Fair assessment, especially considering UA has only been at this "total war" thing since Feb 2022.
Fair assessment, especially considering UA has only been at this "total war" thing since Feb 2022.
Good point on the issue of "good faith claims" Even in the era of the close dogfight in the Battle of Britain, the over reporting of shot down aircraft was considerably overstated by both sides.
Thanks Tom I found this to be very informative
Thanks for the analysis.
To me, the use of ballistic missiles is a classic asymmetric warfare case: an attacking country may stock hundreds of ballistic missiles compared to dozens of Patriot missiles in anti-ballistic roles (both regarding cost and number of missiles).
So, the real deterrence happens when the defending country also has an adequate number of ballistic missiles to cause harm to the attacker. Unless Ukraine has a large amount of ballistic missiles able to hit within the Russian territory and against Russian military targets (launchers etc), I think that the whole fight is quite one-sided. Depending only on defensive measures is a recipe for losing the war.
Adrien: very nice....thank you.
Thank you so much for this!