aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]

I don’t know what this is

  • 26 Posts
  • 4.43K Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 26th, 2020

help-circle



  • Attacking Ukrainian electrical infrastructure already started with the big attack a few days ago, even to the point that 7 out of 9 Ukrainian nuclear power plants (NPPs) had to reduce output to between 40-90% of their usual output. The first time this happened in the war. In fact, I’d argue that the US lifting the restrictions on ATACMS is likely in response to this new stage of the de-electrification campaign by Russia against Ukraine. So you’re right in that they could continue it with more strikes, but I’d argue that was already planned.

    The hard limit to any de-electrification campaign is that Russia cannot strike the sources of off site power for the NPPs to the point that the NPPs lose external power completely, that would be very dangerous as it’s required for proper reactor cooling.


  • The real issue is that these types of long range missiles can carry a nuclear payload. If Russia detects that a bunch of nuclear capable missiles are flying to Russia then they have to make call on whether it is a genuine nuclear first strike or just a conventional weapons attack.

    There’s no known nuclear version of ATACMS, and even if we go by this logic Ukraine could also claim that they don’t know if Russian Kh-101s carried by Tu-160 bombers (part of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces) are nuclear armed or not, so they don’t know if they’re under nuclear attack or not.

    The real issue with ATACMS missiles being used to attack Russian territory, as explained by Lavrov today and Putin earlier, is that it relies on US and NATO satellites for guidance, and US/NATO specialists to input attacking information and flight paths. So in essence, you have US military specialists and assets directly taking part in conducting strikes on Russian territory and military facilities within Russia. Something that didn’t even happen during the cold war. That’s what makes it a huge escalation.




  • The reason the INF was even signed is because these are the riskiest platforms to actually field and maintain, the INF still allowed sea and air launched short/intermediate ranged ballistic missiles.

    Well yes, no one wants nuclear weapons stationed on their land border. It’s an extremely high risk scenario. So both sides at the time could agree to take these weapons out of service. Banning sea launched nuclear weapons would be an impossibility given the existence of submarines, no side would willingly give up their second strike capabilities. And air launched ballistic missiles were not operational as of 1991, the US had only conducted a few experiments and the air launched version of what became the ATACMS programme was scrapped. The Kinzhal only became operational as of 2022. Nuclear air launched cruise missiles were not going to be banned, as that was important for both sides strategic bombers.

    Ultimately the treaty was not going to last with only the US and Russia being members, it’s gives a superpower like China a huge advantage in this field. Even a country like Iran has developed IRBMS/MRBMs which don’t have a direct NATO or Russian counterpart currently in service. There’s also the plans around the “NATO missile defense system” that basically killed the deal. If one side builds missile defences, the other side is going to look to construct weapons that can bypass them, to keep the playing field level. Any future treaty would have to ban the deployment or construction of certain advanced missile defence systems to be viable.



  • AFAIR NATO countries haven’t ever fielded TCMBs with nuclear warheads on mobile land platforms due to the risk

    There was Pershing Ia and Pershing II which had nuclear warheads, but they are no longer in service. They were stationed in Europe, West Germany in particular had a lot of mobile sites, mounted on MAN M1001 vehicles. Pershing II was a particularly scary missile as it had a MaRV (Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) back in the 1980s. It’s basically the father of all modern tactical ballistic missiles. No air defence system from that time was intercepting that. Even the most sophisticated modern missile defence systems, such as Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 in Israel, still struggle to intercept MaRVs, as shown by Iran’s October 1st retaliatory strike.

    The reason we haven’t seen this after 1991, and why the US and Russia have not focused much on short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles since then, is due to the INF treaty. However, the US withdrew from this treaty during 2018 and 2019.



  • The only F-35s with Air Launched Ballistic Missiles (ALBMs) are the Israeli F-35s with the ROCKS missile, the US F-35s have the AGM-158 JASSM and LRASM cruise missiles as standoff weapons, and cannot carry them in the internal weapons bays, and only on external pylons. Realistically, one F-35 can only carry 2 AGM-158s (it has only been pictured carrying two at a time) or ROCKs missiles at a time on external pylons, given that these are large heavy missiles with a large aerodynamic footprint. So that’s 3 F-35s for six missiles. The smaller SPEAR 3 cruise missiles, designed to be carried internally, are still in development, and are much smaller weapons, more similar to 100kg glide bombs than large cruise or ballistic missiles.

    Realistically, a stationary air defence system versus modern SEAD/DEAD tactics is a sitting duck, eventually it will be taken out, the aircraft always have the advantage. The key to survivability for air defence is to be mobile, as shown by the Serbs.



  • No modern air defence or missile defence system in the world is able to deal with modern day ballistic missiles when fired at a large enough volume, with quasi ballistic manouvers (in the case of ATACMS and Iskander-M) and Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicles (MaRVs) capable of performing skip and glide trajectories/pull up manoeuvres and pseudo random evasive maneuvers, in the case of modern Iranian missiles, such as the Kheibar Shekan series, and Fattah-1. We’ve seen Patriot PAC-3 systems been destroyed by Iskanders and Kinzhals, and S-300 and S-400 systems been destroyed by ROCKS (in Iran) and ATACMS.

    Modern ballistic missiles (both air launched and ground launched) travel faster than ever inside the earth’s atmosphere, are capable of high accuracy even in GPS denied environments (in the case of US systems with highly accurate inertial guidance, Israeli systems with anti radiation seekers, and short range Iranian systems with EO seekers), and can manouver in non ballistic ways. It’s just going to get even worse for air defence once hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) enter service. India just tested an Anti Ship HGV a few days ago.







  • Ukraine just hit a military installation in Bryansk with ATACMS missiles in the early hours of this morning, five intercepted but one got through according to the Russian MOD. Putin has also signed Russia’s updated nuclear doctrine into law, allowing for a nuclear response to a large scale non nuclear attack by a non nuclear state, aided by a nuclear state.

    Russian MoD statement:

    Translation of Russian MoD statement
    • Tonight at 3.25 a.m. the enemy struck a facility on the territory of the Bryansk region with six ballistic missiles.

    • According to confirmed information, American-made ATACMS operational-tactical ballistic missiles were used.

    • As a result of an anti-missile battle by S-400 SAMs and Pantsir SAMs, five missiles were shot down and one was damaged.

    • Its fragments fell on the technical territory of a military facility in the Bryansk region, causing a fire, which was promptly extinguished.

    • There were no casualties or damage.

    Russian Ministry of Defence

    The statement appears in contradiction with the latest video from the area, showing a clear explosion. It seems as if the damaged missile got through for a direct hit. Or there were some secondary explosions from debris. Either way, there is clear damage done should the footage be legitimate.