"Right now, the United States’ Patriot and the European SAMP-T systems are the only proven solutions deployed in Ukraine, confirmed to have successfully intercepted Russian ballistic missiles"
Actually, back in 2022 UA S-300V system downed at least one RU KH-22 (AS-4) 3M missile.
Kiel Institute article did mention that it took 16-32 Patriot missiles to destroy an incoming Kinzhal missile - I assume that efficiency must have improved as even 16 missiles would cost a fortune if we think of PAC-3 MSE versions...ín my view probably a Kinzhal is slightly easier case compared to an Iskander as the Mig31k trajectory should help anticipating the missile VS an Iskander or a KN-23b...(or a combination when Iskander comes at a depleted ballistic trajectory and the KN23 followin' a high ballistic patern)
Kiel Institute article did mention that it took 16-32 Patriot missiles to destroy an incoming Kinzhal missile - I assume that efficiency must have improved as even 16 missiles would cost a fortune if we think of PAC-3 MSE versions...ín my view probably a Kinzhal is slightly easier case compared to an Iskander as the Mig31k trajectory should help anticipating the missile VS an Iskander or a KN-23b...(or a combination when Iskander comes at a depleted ballistic trajectory and the KN23 followin' a high ballistic patern)
Blatant kremlin lie. At the beginning when Ukraine only received Patriot system ruzz fuhrer putin fired analo hovnet 10 kinzhal missles on Kyiv. All were shot down by Patriot. So, that's must be 320pcs of PAC-3 interceptors fired at once)))
Why can't we "shoot down" bullets from a AK-47? Shouldn't we just accept, for the foreseeable future, it's impossible. A couple of things not pointed out is the missile is flying through strong winds and sharp temperature differences. Crucially, the heat on the nose interferes with sensors and communication. Add multiple warheads and it's time to throw up ones hands. Fortunately, ballistics are limited in the payloads they can carry.
The Russians are using their ballistics as terrorist weapons. I touched on some of that in my other provocative post. Ballistics from both sides cannot be shot down reliably. I bet it's close to 5%. Expecting some new technology to change that tomorrow is...well.
Blaming the U.S./EU for not providing enough Patriots is lying to the public, IMO.
Or, if you are going to shoot them down you need to get them when they slow down in the atmosphere which means you need to very close to their target and that would means Ukraine blanketed with thousands of these systems with each having hundreds of missiles in stock.
From what I understand the U.S. Navy doesn't assume it will shoot down long-range ballistics coming in at a destroyer, they plan to read the launch vector and get the f out of the way. Is that correct?
The problem, once again, is 3 years on, Russia can target civilians and Ukraine cannot. The only solution (if not above) is destroy the missiles before they're launched and that requires manufacturing missiles, drones, cruise missiles, etc., to do that job, at huge rates. Maybe they're doing that. I certainly hope they are.
Lastly, maybe Ukraine shouldn't have reported what happened in Sumy.
I like to think the "shock and awe" targeted government buildings which Iraqis knew were going to be hit. That said, the "shock and awe" bombing campaign was disgusting and one of the low points, for me, of being an American. I do agree that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is little different than the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Iraq was not good for the U.S. Ukraine won't be good for Russia.
The problem with intercepting ballistic missiles is cost effectiveness, it always cost more to intercept a missile than to make a new one (total system costs) , the launcher always control the timing and the target location, sure Trumps golden dome and Israel's ABM umbrella can spend lavishly even extravagantly to make a statement against none state actors and failed states without a real missile force but proves totally inadequate against an enemy that can really saturate and penetrate the most solid ABM currently in the world that have ample regional buffer zone and and even more lenient target space and types to cover and comfort time window to respond as we have seen in the case of the Iranian missile strike on Tel Aviv.
In the long run strategic bombardment is won by logistics and the ability to penetrate the target defenses and manufacturing and storage infrastructure, any how missiles are poor substitute for other strategic bombardment means and simply using them to terrorize civilians and inviting a retaliation strikes against own civilians is ultimately futile and wasteful from the military sense.
Ukraine knows this and use what they got to target military infrastructure and manufacturing capacities and this should be the focus of the military aid , the Russian regime can not afford to taeget civilians if every attack was followed by a massive retaliation against Russian economic and military infrastructure in the strategic depth.
Meanwhile the ABM defence network of Ukraine can not be stretched to protect every civilian target with out exposing vital war efforts targets which is why the the Russian regime is targeting civilians to begin with
Agree. And taking out the archer, then it doesn’t matter what bows he use. And if you ask me all wars come down to that defense. But still, it is important to protect civilians. After all that’s the reason the war is fought.
I believe that the best defense is a good offense.
Unfortunately, both Europe and the US are presently devoid of strong leadership that can take charge and shift the strategy to a more proactive, offensive approach. This scenario is eerily reminiscent of the early stages of World War II, where governments' incompetence and inaction allowed the situation to deteriorate to such a critical point.
After Trump's reaction/refusal to even sell Patriot batteries to Kiyv, I guess that these systems will become doorstops quite soon, and only SAMP/T will be actively supported/resupplied in the near future...
And the Aster 30 production logistics are ridiculously complex, with the missile doing multiple round trips over the Italian border in order to add multiple components.
"Right now, the United States’ Patriot and the European SAMP-T systems are the only proven solutions deployed in Ukraine, confirmed to have successfully intercepted Russian ballistic missiles"
Actually, back in 2022 UA S-300V system downed at least one RU KH-22 (AS-4) 3M missile.
Isn't the KH-22 a cruise missile?
Yesno. At final dive it effectively goes ballistically while at dive from high altitude. Plus 3+M speed.
Extremely hard target but S-300V can manage it.
Kiel Institute article did mention that it took 16-32 Patriot missiles to destroy an incoming Kinzhal missile - I assume that efficiency must have improved as even 16 missiles would cost a fortune if we think of PAC-3 MSE versions...ín my view probably a Kinzhal is slightly easier case compared to an Iskander as the Mig31k trajectory should help anticipating the missile VS an Iskander or a KN-23b...(or a combination when Iskander comes at a depleted ballistic trajectory and the KN23 followin' a high ballistic patern)
Kiel Institute article did mention that it took 16-32 Patriot missiles to destroy an incoming Kinzhal missile - I assume that efficiency must have improved as even 16 missiles would cost a fortune if we think of PAC-3 MSE versions...ín my view probably a Kinzhal is slightly easier case compared to an Iskander as the Mig31k trajectory should help anticipating the missile VS an Iskander or a KN-23b...(or a combination when Iskander comes at a depleted ballistic trajectory and the KN23 followin' a high ballistic patern)
Blatant kremlin lie. At the beginning when Ukraine only received Patriot system ruzz fuhrer putin fired analo hovnet 10 kinzhal missles on Kyiv. All were shot down by Patriot. So, that's must be 320pcs of PAC-3 interceptors fired at once)))
Great piece, Benjamin. Thanks.
Why can't we "shoot down" bullets from a AK-47? Shouldn't we just accept, for the foreseeable future, it's impossible. A couple of things not pointed out is the missile is flying through strong winds and sharp temperature differences. Crucially, the heat on the nose interferes with sensors and communication. Add multiple warheads and it's time to throw up ones hands. Fortunately, ballistics are limited in the payloads they can carry.
The Russians are using their ballistics as terrorist weapons. I touched on some of that in my other provocative post. Ballistics from both sides cannot be shot down reliably. I bet it's close to 5%. Expecting some new technology to change that tomorrow is...well.
Blaming the U.S./EU for not providing enough Patriots is lying to the public, IMO.
Or, if you are going to shoot them down you need to get them when they slow down in the atmosphere which means you need to very close to their target and that would means Ukraine blanketed with thousands of these systems with each having hundreds of missiles in stock.
From what I understand the U.S. Navy doesn't assume it will shoot down long-range ballistics coming in at a destroyer, they plan to read the launch vector and get the f out of the way. Is that correct?
The problem, once again, is 3 years on, Russia can target civilians and Ukraine cannot. The only solution (if not above) is destroy the missiles before they're launched and that requires manufacturing missiles, drones, cruise missiles, etc., to do that job, at huge rates. Maybe they're doing that. I certainly hope they are.
Lastly, maybe Ukraine shouldn't have reported what happened in Sumy.
How are the Russian "terrorist weapons" different from the Bush "shock and awe"?
I like to think the "shock and awe" targeted government buildings which Iraqis knew were going to be hit. That said, the "shock and awe" bombing campaign was disgusting and one of the low points, for me, of being an American. I do agree that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is little different than the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. But two wrongs don't make a right.
Iraq was not good for the U.S. Ukraine won't be good for Russia.
The problem with intercepting ballistic missiles is cost effectiveness, it always cost more to intercept a missile than to make a new one (total system costs) , the launcher always control the timing and the target location, sure Trumps golden dome and Israel's ABM umbrella can spend lavishly even extravagantly to make a statement against none state actors and failed states without a real missile force but proves totally inadequate against an enemy that can really saturate and penetrate the most solid ABM currently in the world that have ample regional buffer zone and and even more lenient target space and types to cover and comfort time window to respond as we have seen in the case of the Iranian missile strike on Tel Aviv.
In the long run strategic bombardment is won by logistics and the ability to penetrate the target defenses and manufacturing and storage infrastructure, any how missiles are poor substitute for other strategic bombardment means and simply using them to terrorize civilians and inviting a retaliation strikes against own civilians is ultimately futile and wasteful from the military sense.
Ukraine knows this and use what they got to target military infrastructure and manufacturing capacities and this should be the focus of the military aid , the Russian regime can not afford to taeget civilians if every attack was followed by a massive retaliation against Russian economic and military infrastructure in the strategic depth.
Meanwhile the ABM defence network of Ukraine can not be stretched to protect every civilian target with out exposing vital war efforts targets which is why the the Russian regime is targeting civilians to begin with
Agree. And taking out the archer, then it doesn’t matter what bows he use. And if you ask me all wars come down to that defense. But still, it is important to protect civilians. After all that’s the reason the war is fought.
Cost effectiveness you can also measure by what you protect, which is the reason you need an answer.
"A layered network of western systems [and] Ukrainian ingenuity"
Our civilization and your culture?
I believe that the best defense is a good offense.
Unfortunately, both Europe and the US are presently devoid of strong leadership that can take charge and shift the strategy to a more proactive, offensive approach. This scenario is eerily reminiscent of the early stages of World War II, where governments' incompetence and inaction allowed the situation to deteriorate to such a critical point.
After Trump's reaction/refusal to even sell Patriot batteries to Kiyv, I guess that these systems will become doorstops quite soon, and only SAMP/T will be actively supported/resupplied in the near future...
And the Aster 30 production logistics are ridiculously complex, with the missile doing multiple round trips over the Italian border in order to add multiple components.
Ukraine is getting another battery or two from Germany and Israel plus ~90 missiles form Israeli stocks.