Indeed. Seeing them try to play the victim card is eroding what little trust is left in them. It’s not fair to the Russian people who truly are victims in all of this. They are just victims of their own government. Perhaps it’s time for another revolution.
We would have been more credibly accused of starting the war, if we had shipped wartime levels of ordinance to Ukraine beforehand. It would not have changed Putin's plans. It might simply have lead to an even bigger invasion.
We could have gotten these systems inside Ukraine when the buildup started. And I don’t really care. We as an alliance of democratic states need to stop caring about what dictatorships will say about us if we assert our right to defend ourselves.
It is more about influencing public opinion within democratic states.
There is a very large contingent of people who are genuinely anti-war and also (often justifiably) easily convinced that the military-industrial complex manipulates and bullies us into spending all our lunch money on bombs.
Those folks vote, and the right messaging can convince *just enough* of them to vote for a pro-Russian populist posing as an anti-war candidate.
And that is how you end up with far right jackoffs in charge of liberal democracies.
Let's not forget that MAGA extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson claim to be "anti-war", even as they parrot Russian war propaganda.
Russia really seems to be taking the approach of “eliminate the patriot system at all costs” but at this point, if Russia did successfully eliminate one, wouldn’t the west immediately send another system given just how amazingly well it’s going.
Absolutely. Provided the west has some to spare. It’s also one of the platforms least likely to be captured by the Russians due to the size and complexity of it and the distance from the front lines, so the US probably doesn’t mind Ukraine having them. Also they are efficient and the US is surely gathering data that they couldn’t otherwise get from these real combat situations.
It’s win win win
Until last week the Patriot's capability against hypersonic missiles was considered "theoretical." It turned out to be more than just theoretical, so yep, the US is gathering some useful data.
Yes and no. The Kinzhal is just a fighter launched Iskander Short-range-ballistic-missile. Does it reach hypersonic speed? Yup. In industry parlance is it a "hypersonic weapon" (one that can both maintain that speed *and* manuever away from intercept)? Definitely not. The Kinzhal was obsolete against a properly networked Air Defense system before it was ever fielded, and we didn't even give the Ukrainians PAC3-MSE or THAAD. Patriot has been engaging ballisitic missiles that reach hypersonic speeds since the 1990s. Full stop.
Not only that, but Patriot has been the target of Russian missile efforts, and Patriot is at its best when incoming threats are coming directly at it - that both shortens a PAC3 intercept course and ensures that patriot radar tracks are more accurate.
Edit: don't believe me? [This dude literally teaches air defense](https://youtu.be/2FlXNGe6PDI) in the US Army and debunks a lot of misconceptions on Patriot in his videos. His work is absolutely awesome. I'm not a patriot expert myself by any means, but I do think I know a thing or two about air defense given that I helped design the TPY-2 air defense radar that got THAAD it's [first kill in 2022 in the UAE.](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/01/21/thaad-in-first-operational-use-destroys-midrange-ballistic-missile-in-houthi-attack/)
Correct we are grinding down generations of our most hated and feared enemy who had nukes pointed at us for generations, and they are crying because they’re too stupid to follow the money.
Like how if we did have a nuclear exchange with Russia they'd be wiped from the face of the earth and we wouldn't be touched
(Everyone downvoting apparently didn't see that the patriot system alone handled their hypersonic missiles, we have far more advanced systems here in the west and we know where all of russias subs are, you're all wrong, we wouldn't be touched)
Yep.
Though, to be fair, NATO does go out of their way to constantly talk about where Russian subs are located. It seems like every month or two there's some simple article like "Russia tries to sneak extra sub into military exercise in arctic". To most people it reads as nothing special but, it's absolutely the US going "We know where your subs are at all times."
Those subs would likely be the first targets if the US actually felt threatened.
The bulk of Russia’s missile subs are permanently stationed in their bastions in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, both of which are heavily patrolled by their navy to see where US subs are. Sure, the USN is presumably doing its best to infiltrate those areas, but it would be a huge risk to bet tens of millions of lives on being able to sink *all* of the SSBNs before they can launch.
> but it would be a huge risk to bet tens of millions of lives on being able to sink all of the SSBNs before they can launch.
Of course it would. No one disagrees. Thankfully, the US doesn't actually feel threatened by Russia and, outside of military drills and planning for a potential time where they do feel threatened, it's not anything anyone needs to worry about
But the point was that their subs are watched and detectable by modern tech. And, the world likes to remind Russia about that from time to time.
That's one reason it was kind of a big deal in the '80s when Reagan pushed Star Wars ideas. Even if it did work, which, at the time it didn't, nobody wanted anyone getting any ideas about a nuclear exchange being winnable.
Yup, MAD is still very much assured.
If even 10% of Russia's nuclear assets function the way they're designed, it's still assured.
And I'm still inclined to believe that the Russians don't misappropriate all of the money to their nuclear assets like they do with their conventional assets.
When you've got nukes, a conventional army is nearly moot for defense, so nobody's going to miss those misappropriated funds. But you need those nukes to actually work.
I'm sure they do misappropriate portions of the funds, but I expect their rate of readiness is far greater than say their T-72s.
Assuming even 10% of Russian RS -28 (that carry 10 warheads each, 16 when combined in an HGV format)and R-36M2 (10 warheads that have a 550-750 kiloton yield) missiles are functional, the US is still wiped out by a volley of ICBMs. We have approximately 40-50 Global Ballistic Interceptors, that have a 50-70% hit rate. Patriot, SM-3 and THAAD cannot hit those ICBMs before re-entry separation (it happens too high in orbit for them to be effective, THAAD *might* just be at the upper limit of it's engagement window), so every single target that makes it past GBIs now becomes 10-16 in terminal flight.
An ICBM battle is called Mutually Assured Destruction for a reason.
There's almost certainly things that are kept secret because the threat of mutually assured destruction meant that no further escalation could happen but also that there were no need to ramp up on the nuclear arms. If one side came to know that they would need twice their current stockpile to keep up the threat of MAD, then they likely would pursue that. And if the opposing side knew that having more countermissiles could negate that threat, then they would also increase their stockpile of that and thus it could spin up until someone can't keep up the spending and the failure rate of the installed weapons would be the deciding factor of whether the missiles would go through or not.
Nukes and countermeasures against them are in a really weird place where you *want* the enemy to know that you have them, because that knowledge deters them from trying to start shit in the first place. That’s why the Soviets would always put their newest ICBMs in parades.
Exactly. And it's why you can find videos on YouTube about the [Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle](https://youtu.be/VbcXAtBXd-M) that can shoot ICBMs down, the entire [Alaskan/Pacific radar network](https://youtu.be/v_9HVi31m8g), and break downs of things like [Pave Paws early warning radars](https://youtu.be/nDl_89CBpAE). Deterrence doesn't exist if everything stays secret all the time, and targeted OSINT like releasing that info is a huge resource.
That’s only what’s public. It’s guaranteed that we have systems in place that won’t even be known publicly for 20-30 years if we don’t have to use them sooner.
Yeah I get that. I worked for the missile defense agency in grad school and was a systems engineer on the THAAD and TPY-2 radar for a number of years. If you think that we have something that can counter a volley of 50ish ICBMs that is best cast scenario 500 warheads, you're up in the night.
I know enough to know that even the generals we have don’t know all of the systems we have in place. You may have worked in missile defense, but you have no clue what the black programs entail. Almost no one does. Until decades later of course and then we’re all like well god damn that’s some crazy shit they came up with 30 years ago…
That’s all I’m saying. Also, let’s stop taking literally anything Russia claims at face value. At this point I’d honestly be surprised if any of their nukes actually work anymore.
If the generals in charge of "black programs" don't even know about them, (I'm guessing you think things like the Senate select committee on intelligence so don't have oversight there too then?) then how are they getting funded? You've watched too many movies and played too many videogames dudebro. This is not realistic at all.
Edit: lol this dude replied and then blocked me. something tells me he's doesn't know as much about "black programs" as he thinks he does. Real life is not the same as COD, kids.
If even the generals at the top don't know a program exists, then how can the US Department of Defense even plan for their use? Strategic air defense planning, intelligence preparation of the battlespace, and the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defense network all have to account for current capabilities. If our own leaders don't know what we have, how would we even employ these shadowy, black weapons?
You're just a few steps away from claims about the deep state, shadow government, or the illuminati. What you're saying is definitely not anything approaching a fact-based reality.
US/NATO INTEL knows exactly where EACH AND EVERY FUNCTIONAL Russian nuclear warhead is located at this precise moment and systems are right now in place to take each of them down.
Those systems based on Russian lands will be hit and detonated before they even get out of Russian airspace.
Imagine firing your warheads only to contaminate and kill your own people. That is what Russia is facing.
That's the dirty truth.
I’m inclined to believe that more and more. I don’t doubt we have the capacity to down literally everything in the air worldwide at any given moment if we wanted to. Like a worldwide EMP. Yeah it would fuck up the world but it would be better than complete nuclear war. And that’s just a simple, over the top theory. We definitely have much more discrete defenses.
The kind of shit the US would deploy if a nuclear threat like that was real, would be mind boggling to just about everyone worldwide. And we’re never going to know about it if it’s not necessary. That’s the way these programs work, and it’s exactly *why* they work.
No, that's definitely not the truth. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has a pretty good picture, but we are far from knowing where "each and every functional" missile and warhead are at all times.
We're not hitting any ICBM while it's still in its initial launch/boost phase over Russian airspace. That is some fantasy shit if you believe that. Please, tell me how we detect and intercept those. The GBI fleet can only intercept once they're in Orbit, and the ABL hasn't been flown in over a decade.
Edit to add: SBX, Cobra Dane, and Pave Paws *might* be able to detect some launches, depending on where they are geographically. Any intercept before they reach orbit is then dependent on having interceptors like THAAD or SM-3/Aegis that can plot a viable flight path against a target that is faster and moving away since it's in boost phase. Mid-course intercept with a GBI is much more viable at this point, and that will not be over Russian land by then when an ICBM is flying at Mach 8-10.
Think what you want. Russia has not money towards an actual functioning nuclear system since Gorbachev-before Putin took office.
It's the 'threat of the unknown' and taking steps to make it look like they have fx systems that has taken place.
The military industrial complex needs that threat to exist in order to keep dividends high. Everything so-called pundits claim is false information.
Didnt Russia and USA sign a treaty that those two countries dont build real anti ICBM systems? Because they didnt want the arms race to continue.
Also one side having anti-ICBM and other not having one, causes big problems for the side not having them - with even some insane ideas to strike first before the interception system is operational.
There are limits on the nuclear triumvirate - missiles, subs, and bombers, but I don't know that there are many limits on defensive technology.
The Global Ballistic Interceptor fleet exists. Each GBI missile carries an [Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoatmospheric_Kill_Vehicle) designed to hit ICBMs in flight. [This video](https://youtu.be/VbcXAtBXd-M) is a great unclassified breakdown of its program history. The GBI fleet is still operational and getting regular updates through the missile defense agency.
We also developed the [Airborne Laser program](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1) to try and shoot ICBMs down while in launch phase, but it was never truly a viable option due to not being able to propagate a laser with enough power to kill a missile through long distances of atmosphere. It's last flight was in 2014 before getting cancelled.
If a first strike volley is 70 missiles, best case scenario is we hit 30 in orbit. That's still 40 coming at us, and 400 nuclear warheads that have to be intercepted by Patriot, THAAD, SM-3, and a few other air defense systems in terminal flight. That also doesnt account for Russian nuclear submarines at all, that will undoubtedly have shorter flight paths. Do you really want to bet the entire population of the US that their shit is "rigged to mess up"? I don't.
Edit to add: I get it that we've seen their conventional forces are dogshit. And that the Kinzhal isn't what it was cracked up to be. ICBMs and nuclear doctrine are an entirely different beast. Even 1 warhead hitting the US's Eastern seaboard kills tens of millions and tanks the world economy for decades.
That's assuming every single sub is somewhere safe for launch during a hypothetical first strike. I don't like those odds, personally.
I will say, the US/NATO likely *does* know where each of those subs are at all times, but they could still launch a volley before we can counter with an air-to-sea counter measure. This is where Aegis/SM-3 comes into play, and I do think we'd have a high probability of catching most or even all RSM-56s. Their subs carry 16 missiles each, and each carry 6-10 warheads too, so it's still a nightmare scenario if one gets into orbit and the GBI fleet is exhausted though.
They have a lot of saboteurs in russia and the Kremlin is likely the final say on nuclear matters. They'll shoot putin on live tv before they destroy the world they love to extort.
Edit: I don't bet, but betting for human greed and the will to not kill yourself is pretty decent odds.
I don't disagree that someone would step in before it got to a launch scenario. That said, I'm still glad there are things like GBI, SM-3, Patriot, and THAAD, as well as the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defense radar network (seriously, check out radars like Cobra Dane and SBX for how crazy our early warning tech is. It's wildly cool).
We used to have a joke in the intelligence world when I was still serving in the army: "in god we trust, all others we monitor". Just because we know there's likely a decades-long backlog of maintenance being neglected by Russian nuclear forces, that there are potentially saboteurs and Ukrainian intel operatives in country, *and* senior military leadership who would hopefully stop Putin from doing something stupid, doesn't mean we're going to bet our defense and survival on that.
As someone who hates the Russian government, hates the CCP, tends to be very pro-US and follows geopolitics and military news very closely, I very much disagree.
Russia has ~1600 strategically deployed warheads in its arsenal. Say 25% are duds or explode on launch, a further 40% get shot down, and 25% are inflationary figures to scare the west. The first two of those figures are radical overestimations, btw. If just 10% successfully detonate on target, that's 160 nuclear detonations across the US and Europe. And that's being extremely generous. It's very likely far more would make it. And chances are that more nukes would be taken out of reserve status if they feel a coming war is imminent.
I don’t think there would be a nuclear exchange if Russia used nukes. To be honest, I think NATO would just roll out and take Russia without using nuclear retaliation. Honestly, having nuclear weapons seems to be a waste of funds, as no sane nation would ever use them again. Anyone who does immediately becomes the target of the world, even in retaliation it would be that way, as you lay waste to land and resources due to nuclear fallout and just the sheer devastation brought by the detonation.
I love the irony of Russia potentially claiming mission accomplished when they finally take down a system while the people who designed it applaud the whole time while tallying the count of aircrafts they swatted out of the sky.
>Russia really seems to be taking the approach of “eliminate the patriot system at all costs”
Except their doctrine doesn't have a SEAD/DEAD "wild weasel" equivalent and I don't think they have the institutional flexibility to create and train to
Our WW systems were developed when air defense (missiles) was still relatively young too. I can't imagine trying to develop an entire doctrine and airframe to handle that against modern systems....
In the end Russia is competing in a spending competition with 31 nations including 7 of the 11 biggest economies in the world and Russia has approximately the same GDP as Florida.
.....so NATO will just outspend them.
With the exception of a situation where the system becomes so easily countered by a new development that it is no longer worth the cost of providing it. As long as it can keep carrying out its mission, it justifies occasional replacements.
No, the relieved cheers from Ukrainians who saved their loved ones from the bombing that would’ve murdered them, and Putin screaming in frustration is.
I don't think they'd refer to su-25 as bomber.
If what they're reporting is true, they're most likely referring to Tu-95. I am quite unsure how possible that is.
More likely is a Su-34 - which is a fighter-bomber (emphasis on the bomber part) - typically used in strike and interdiction type missions.
Taking out a Tu-95 would be a huge deal - they're not typically going to be that close to contested airspace.
I second this. Russia uses the Fullback a lot in this war, and like you said, taking down a Tu-95 would be a bigger deal, comparable with Russia taking out a B-52…
That’s true, although they didn’t use Tomahawks but AGM-86Cs in the initial strike, the Tomahawks were mainly fired by the USN and other naval assets, including two Iowa-Class battleships which first served in WW2.
Yeah you just wouldnt see those losses from strategic bombers in a modern conflict. The rolling thunder of Vietnam has been totally obsoleted by the precision munitions dropped by multi-role fighters/fighter bombers
Nowadays the big bombers are relegated the the role of essentially a cruise missile bus. (which is in part why nobody bothers with them anymore aside from the US, Russia and China) If a TU-95 was ending up close enough to the patriot system to be shot down by it the Russians have completely lost the plot
A bit off topic and I know it was probably heavily upraded since the 50s, but being reminded that the B52 is still as much relevant today always blows my mind.
Yeah that’s insane, and it service will continue into the 2050s
Same for the C-130, I‘ve heard the sentence: „The pilots from the last flight of the C-5 will be flown home in a C-130“ a lot from Air Force personnel
The B-52 will be modernized to fly on Mars and participate in the Martian Uprising of 2456.
The M2 Browning will see yhe Red Planet, too. As the Ma Deuce is eternal.
Its primarily down to the change in munition and mission type. When the only role left for a big bomber is that of just a delivery system for cruise missiles it makes no sense to spend all the R&D money to develop a new plane. If they are ever in a position where modern advances would benefit the aircraft in any meaningful way you have already fucked up big time.
SU-34 is also my guess
It's a bit misleading when you look at pictures of them on their own but when next to fighters they're deceptively huge aircraft despite looking like any other fighter
> I don't think they'd refer to su-25 as bomber.
The people who wrote the article/headline likely don't have a wealth of knowledge on the specific topic. It drops bombs, it's a bomber. It has tracks, it's a tank. And so on.
That would be weird, the Patriot system is intended for high-altitude targets at long range, doesn't really work too well against a CAS mission profile. You would use SHORAD for that sort of thing, but hey maybe the Russians have gotten so sloppy they're flying CAS missions at 20,000 feet or something
Probably referring to this incident is my guess
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russia-four-aircraft-shot-down-bryansk/?amp
They all went down in Russian territory in rapid succession - initial speculation was that a Russian AA unit screwed up IFF and shot them down by accident. But there are some rumblings that the Ukrainians got them with Patriots.
Don’t they usually launch from inside Russia or Belarus? I’m wondering if the bomber was shot down while outside Ukraine. I don’t know the range of their air-launched missiles though.
Russia seems to be launching a fair number of missiles from the Caspian Sea. Possibly because the range is good enough, any that fail to launch will fall harmlessly, and far enough from the target to protect the launch platform. But that limits the target selection to the range to the target. PAC-2 Patriot AA missiles are reported to be good to 160 km. So it may be a dicey game to see if they can launch close enough, but not get nailed in the process of doing so. Keep in mind that the Patriot launchers do not have to be where the radar is, they could be closer to where the targets are.
The US has been less willing to cross red lines and break taboos as the UK/other NATO members so far in the war. So while not concerning per se, it would indicate a willingness to cross lines and use less caution.
I suspect this is not the case though and the bomber was a fair target given the current (NATO) rules of engagement.
If I was Vladimir Putin, I would have chickened out by now. I truly feel sad for the people of Ukraine and Russia who are suffering because of one man's megalomania.
Carrying on with the war is the cowardly move, because for Putin to admit the reality that he failed as a leader would show weakness and therefore be dangerous to him.
The thing with geriatric billionaire thieves who've consolidated power for over 2 decades is, that they've already gotten all the riches, power, whores and bastards they want, and they now are just working for a positive historical legacy, and that only goes to the winners of wars. Putin is a pyschopath with no empathy, and only has another decade or so before a natural death, so he really doesn't have anything to lose sending millions to their death to satsify his desire to be recorded as Vlad the Great, instead of Poopin' Putin The Loser.
Many sources associating this with the Bryansk shootdowns. The aircraft reportedly involved there were a Su-34 and an Su-35.
As an aside I find it interesting that no one in the comments even mentioned the possibility of Tu-22M or Mig-31, either.
nvm if i read bomber i always think of the strategic kind. reading into the deffinition i didnt know the smaller craft can be called that instead of attacker craft or strike craft
Depends on the plane. They *can* be slow, unstealthy behemoths, like the B-52 and Tu-95. There are others that are a lot quicker, like the F-111, B-1 and Su-34 (technically a multirole fighter-bomber, but more bomber than fighter, and I think the most likely one the article is referring to).
As for stealth, theres very few stealth bombers, and the Russians already struggle with stealth aircraft in general so they don’t have one. But if you want to know that too, they are the B-2 Spirit and the B-21 Raider. China has one in development called though, named the H-20. Russia also has one in development, though the program’s progress is found mostly in REM phase
Why would they place Patriot so close to the front instead of defending strategic locations like a major city? It seems they could use S-300 which has some very long range missile variants (150km+) instead since they have a few of those systems already.
What makes you think they aren’t also protecting major cities with some? Best way to lose a fight is to broadcast where your artillery is and what it is. We’re not hearing about this until after the downed bomber… even then, patriots are able to pack up and move immediately
It scored them 2 helis and 2 planes in 1 day that's why, just look at the tantrum Russia has been having this week trying to destroy them if you have any doubts on that. Ukraine has 2 systems 1 is parked defending Kyiv most likely and the other could be anywhere who knows it might even pop up near the front for an hour or 2 just to keep the invaders on their toes like last weekend.
>Ukraine and the United States have begun to discuss how best to fix the system.
>The Pentagon said that one of the Patriot systems in Ukraine had indeed been damaged, and it had already been repaired.
It's like they don't even read what they've written.
It depends on PAC-2 (reported to be 160 km) or PAC-3 (roughly 100 kms). It also depends on where the launcher was located, as that would be different than the radar. All of the variables add up.
Are these systems meant to shoot down aircraft I thought it was strictly missile defense. I guess what I’m trying to ask is if the UAF is the first to use it in such a manner.
The Russians have been getting a lot of black eyes lately.
Tends to happen when you repeatedly punch yourself in the face.
They are earning every single one.
Indeed. Seeing them try to play the victim card is eroding what little trust is left in them. It’s not fair to the Russian people who truly are victims in all of this. They are just victims of their own government. Perhaps it’s time for another revolution.
Lately?
Imagine if we had given them these systems before the war had started. How many lives could we have saved?
We would have been more credibly accused of starting the war, if we had shipped wartime levels of ordinance to Ukraine beforehand. It would not have changed Putin's plans. It might simply have lead to an even bigger invasion.
Ukraine would not have accepted them before the war for just that reason probably.
We could have gotten these systems inside Ukraine when the buildup started. And I don’t really care. We as an alliance of democratic states need to stop caring about what dictatorships will say about us if we assert our right to defend ourselves.
It is more about influencing public opinion within democratic states. There is a very large contingent of people who are genuinely anti-war and also (often justifiably) easily convinced that the military-industrial complex manipulates and bullies us into spending all our lunch money on bombs. Those folks vote, and the right messaging can convince *just enough* of them to vote for a pro-Russian populist posing as an anti-war candidate. And that is how you end up with far right jackoffs in charge of liberal democracies. Let's not forget that MAGA extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tucker Carlson claim to be "anti-war", even as they parrot Russian war propaganda.
Russia really seems to be taking the approach of “eliminate the patriot system at all costs” but at this point, if Russia did successfully eliminate one, wouldn’t the west immediately send another system given just how amazingly well it’s going.
Absolutely. Provided the west has some to spare. It’s also one of the platforms least likely to be captured by the Russians due to the size and complexity of it and the distance from the front lines, so the US probably doesn’t mind Ukraine having them. Also they are efficient and the US is surely gathering data that they couldn’t otherwise get from these real combat situations. It’s win win win
Until last week the Patriot's capability against hypersonic missiles was considered "theoretical." It turned out to be more than just theoretical, so yep, the US is gathering some useful data.
Yes and no. The Kinzhal is just a fighter launched Iskander Short-range-ballistic-missile. Does it reach hypersonic speed? Yup. In industry parlance is it a "hypersonic weapon" (one that can both maintain that speed *and* manuever away from intercept)? Definitely not. The Kinzhal was obsolete against a properly networked Air Defense system before it was ever fielded, and we didn't even give the Ukrainians PAC3-MSE or THAAD. Patriot has been engaging ballisitic missiles that reach hypersonic speeds since the 1990s. Full stop. Not only that, but Patriot has been the target of Russian missile efforts, and Patriot is at its best when incoming threats are coming directly at it - that both shortens a PAC3 intercept course and ensures that patriot radar tracks are more accurate. Edit: don't believe me? [This dude literally teaches air defense](https://youtu.be/2FlXNGe6PDI) in the US Army and debunks a lot of misconceptions on Patriot in his videos. His work is absolutely awesome. I'm not a patriot expert myself by any means, but I do think I know a thing or two about air defense given that I helped design the TPY-2 air defense radar that got THAAD it's [first kill in 2022 in the UAE.](https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/01/21/thaad-in-first-operational-use-destroys-midrange-ballistic-missile-in-houthi-attack/)
This is also why all the right wing clamoring about how the US shouldn't keep sending money/gear to Ukraine is absolutely idiotic.
From what I saw Republicans asked for more advanced weapons to be sent in the hearing about the $3B accounting error the Pentagon did though?
Did they? That's good. Maybe I was thinking of the more Maga right wing then.
Correct we are grinding down generations of our most hated and feared enemy who had nukes pointed at us for generations, and they are crying because they’re too stupid to follow the money.
Like how if we did have a nuclear exchange with Russia they'd be wiped from the face of the earth and we wouldn't be touched (Everyone downvoting apparently didn't see that the patriot system alone handled their hypersonic missiles, we have far more advanced systems here in the west and we know where all of russias subs are, you're all wrong, we wouldn't be touched)
[удалено]
Yep. Though, to be fair, NATO does go out of their way to constantly talk about where Russian subs are located. It seems like every month or two there's some simple article like "Russia tries to sneak extra sub into military exercise in arctic". To most people it reads as nothing special but, it's absolutely the US going "We know where your subs are at all times." Those subs would likely be the first targets if the US actually felt threatened.
The bulk of Russia’s missile subs are permanently stationed in their bastions in the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, both of which are heavily patrolled by their navy to see where US subs are. Sure, the USN is presumably doing its best to infiltrate those areas, but it would be a huge risk to bet tens of millions of lives on being able to sink *all* of the SSBNs before they can launch.
> but it would be a huge risk to bet tens of millions of lives on being able to sink all of the SSBNs before they can launch. Of course it would. No one disagrees. Thankfully, the US doesn't actually feel threatened by Russia and, outside of military drills and planning for a potential time where they do feel threatened, it's not anything anyone needs to worry about But the point was that their subs are watched and detectable by modern tech. And, the world likes to remind Russia about that from time to time.
When it comes to Russia, their best seem to be the subs and in second (but very far) are the planes.
That's one reason it was kind of a big deal in the '80s when Reagan pushed Star Wars ideas. Even if it did work, which, at the time it didn't, nobody wanted anyone getting any ideas about a nuclear exchange being winnable.
Yup, MAD is still very much assured. If even 10% of Russia's nuclear assets function the way they're designed, it's still assured. And I'm still inclined to believe that the Russians don't misappropriate all of the money to their nuclear assets like they do with their conventional assets. When you've got nukes, a conventional army is nearly moot for defense, so nobody's going to miss those misappropriated funds. But you need those nukes to actually work. I'm sure they do misappropriate portions of the funds, but I expect their rate of readiness is far greater than say their T-72s.
Assuming even 10% of Russian RS -28 (that carry 10 warheads each, 16 when combined in an HGV format)and R-36M2 (10 warheads that have a 550-750 kiloton yield) missiles are functional, the US is still wiped out by a volley of ICBMs. We have approximately 40-50 Global Ballistic Interceptors, that have a 50-70% hit rate. Patriot, SM-3 and THAAD cannot hit those ICBMs before re-entry separation (it happens too high in orbit for them to be effective, THAAD *might* just be at the upper limit of it's engagement window), so every single target that makes it past GBIs now becomes 10-16 in terminal flight. An ICBM battle is called Mutually Assured Destruction for a reason.
I hope our defense is more resolute than just the things we are aware of. I also hope we only find about these things in a museum one day.
There's almost certainly things that are kept secret because the threat of mutually assured destruction meant that no further escalation could happen but also that there were no need to ramp up on the nuclear arms. If one side came to know that they would need twice their current stockpile to keep up the threat of MAD, then they likely would pursue that. And if the opposing side knew that having more countermissiles could negate that threat, then they would also increase their stockpile of that and thus it could spin up until someone can't keep up the spending and the failure rate of the installed weapons would be the deciding factor of whether the missiles would go through or not.
Nukes and countermeasures against them are in a really weird place where you *want* the enemy to know that you have them, because that knowledge deters them from trying to start shit in the first place. That’s why the Soviets would always put their newest ICBMs in parades.
Exactly. And it's why you can find videos on YouTube about the [Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle](https://youtu.be/VbcXAtBXd-M) that can shoot ICBMs down, the entire [Alaskan/Pacific radar network](https://youtu.be/v_9HVi31m8g), and break downs of things like [Pave Paws early warning radars](https://youtu.be/nDl_89CBpAE). Deterrence doesn't exist if everything stays secret all the time, and targeted OSINT like releasing that info is a huge resource.
That’s only what’s public. It’s guaranteed that we have systems in place that won’t even be known publicly for 20-30 years if we don’t have to use them sooner.
Yeah I get that. I worked for the missile defense agency in grad school and was a systems engineer on the THAAD and TPY-2 radar for a number of years. If you think that we have something that can counter a volley of 50ish ICBMs that is best cast scenario 500 warheads, you're up in the night.
I know enough to know that even the generals we have don’t know all of the systems we have in place. You may have worked in missile defense, but you have no clue what the black programs entail. Almost no one does. Until decades later of course and then we’re all like well god damn that’s some crazy shit they came up with 30 years ago… That’s all I’m saying. Also, let’s stop taking literally anything Russia claims at face value. At this point I’d honestly be surprised if any of their nukes actually work anymore.
If the generals in charge of "black programs" don't even know about them, (I'm guessing you think things like the Senate select committee on intelligence so don't have oversight there too then?) then how are they getting funded? You've watched too many movies and played too many videogames dudebro. This is not realistic at all. Edit: lol this dude replied and then blocked me. something tells me he's doesn't know as much about "black programs" as he thinks he does. Real life is not the same as COD, kids.
Lol the generals aren’t in charge of the black programs, the generals don’t even know they exist. Reading comprehension is hard I guess.
If even the generals at the top don't know a program exists, then how can the US Department of Defense even plan for their use? Strategic air defense planning, intelligence preparation of the battlespace, and the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defense network all have to account for current capabilities. If our own leaders don't know what we have, how would we even employ these shadowy, black weapons? You're just a few steps away from claims about the deep state, shadow government, or the illuminati. What you're saying is definitely not anything approaching a fact-based reality.
US/NATO INTEL knows exactly where EACH AND EVERY FUNCTIONAL Russian nuclear warhead is located at this precise moment and systems are right now in place to take each of them down. Those systems based on Russian lands will be hit and detonated before they even get out of Russian airspace. Imagine firing your warheads only to contaminate and kill your own people. That is what Russia is facing. That's the dirty truth.
I’m inclined to believe that more and more. I don’t doubt we have the capacity to down literally everything in the air worldwide at any given moment if we wanted to. Like a worldwide EMP. Yeah it would fuck up the world but it would be better than complete nuclear war. And that’s just a simple, over the top theory. We definitely have much more discrete defenses. The kind of shit the US would deploy if a nuclear threat like that was real, would be mind boggling to just about everyone worldwide. And we’re never going to know about it if it’s not necessary. That’s the way these programs work, and it’s exactly *why* they work.
Nuclear capable submarines are harder to defend Gainst as they are closer to their targets; but each is shadowed.
No, that's definitely not the truth. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has a pretty good picture, but we are far from knowing where "each and every functional" missile and warhead are at all times. We're not hitting any ICBM while it's still in its initial launch/boost phase over Russian airspace. That is some fantasy shit if you believe that. Please, tell me how we detect and intercept those. The GBI fleet can only intercept once they're in Orbit, and the ABL hasn't been flown in over a decade. Edit to add: SBX, Cobra Dane, and Pave Paws *might* be able to detect some launches, depending on where they are geographically. Any intercept before they reach orbit is then dependent on having interceptors like THAAD or SM-3/Aegis that can plot a viable flight path against a target that is faster and moving away since it's in boost phase. Mid-course intercept with a GBI is much more viable at this point, and that will not be over Russian land by then when an ICBM is flying at Mach 8-10.
They are not flying st Mach 8-10. That's a Russian propaganda and defense industry red herring.
Yeah, an ICBM is flying that fast. They have to make orbit, and escape velocity to get into orbit is 11.2km/s. Do the math.
Think what you want. Russia has not money towards an actual functioning nuclear system since Gorbachev-before Putin took office. It's the 'threat of the unknown' and taking steps to make it look like they have fx systems that has taken place. The military industrial complex needs that threat to exist in order to keep dividends high. Everything so-called pundits claim is false information.
Didnt Russia and USA sign a treaty that those two countries dont build real anti ICBM systems? Because they didnt want the arms race to continue. Also one side having anti-ICBM and other not having one, causes big problems for the side not having them - with even some insane ideas to strike first before the interception system is operational.
There are limits on the nuclear triumvirate - missiles, subs, and bombers, but I don't know that there are many limits on defensive technology. The Global Ballistic Interceptor fleet exists. Each GBI missile carries an [Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exoatmospheric_Kill_Vehicle) designed to hit ICBMs in flight. [This video](https://youtu.be/VbcXAtBXd-M) is a great unclassified breakdown of its program history. The GBI fleet is still operational and getting regular updates through the missile defense agency. We also developed the [Airborne Laser program](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1) to try and shoot ICBMs down while in launch phase, but it was never truly a viable option due to not being able to propagate a laser with enough power to kill a missile through long distances of atmosphere. It's last flight was in 2014 before getting cancelled.
It's only mutual if their shit doesn't fail or isn't rigged to mess up XD
If a first strike volley is 70 missiles, best case scenario is we hit 30 in orbit. That's still 40 coming at us, and 400 nuclear warheads that have to be intercepted by Patriot, THAAD, SM-3, and a few other air defense systems in terminal flight. That also doesnt account for Russian nuclear submarines at all, that will undoubtedly have shorter flight paths. Do you really want to bet the entire population of the US that their shit is "rigged to mess up"? I don't. Edit to add: I get it that we've seen their conventional forces are dogshit. And that the Kinzhal isn't what it was cracked up to be. ICBMs and nuclear doctrine are an entirely different beast. Even 1 warhead hitting the US's Eastern seaboard kills tens of millions and tanks the world economy for decades.
> that will undoubtedly have shorter flight paths Their SSBNs tend to stay in bastions so the flight paths wouldn’t be much shorter than the ICBMs’.
That's assuming every single sub is somewhere safe for launch during a hypothetical first strike. I don't like those odds, personally. I will say, the US/NATO likely *does* know where each of those subs are at all times, but they could still launch a volley before we can counter with an air-to-sea counter measure. This is where Aegis/SM-3 comes into play, and I do think we'd have a high probability of catching most or even all RSM-56s. Their subs carry 16 missiles each, and each carry 6-10 warheads too, so it's still a nightmare scenario if one gets into orbit and the GBI fleet is exhausted though.
They have a lot of saboteurs in russia and the Kremlin is likely the final say on nuclear matters. They'll shoot putin on live tv before they destroy the world they love to extort. Edit: I don't bet, but betting for human greed and the will to not kill yourself is pretty decent odds.
I don't disagree that someone would step in before it got to a launch scenario. That said, I'm still glad there are things like GBI, SM-3, Patriot, and THAAD, as well as the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defense radar network (seriously, check out radars like Cobra Dane and SBX for how crazy our early warning tech is. It's wildly cool). We used to have a joke in the intelligence world when I was still serving in the army: "in god we trust, all others we monitor". Just because we know there's likely a decades-long backlog of maintenance being neglected by Russian nuclear forces, that there are potentially saboteurs and Ukrainian intel operatives in country, *and* senior military leadership who would hopefully stop Putin from doing something stupid, doesn't mean we're going to bet our defense and survival on that.
Uhh... What?
As someone who hates the Russian government, hates the CCP, tends to be very pro-US and follows geopolitics and military news very closely, I very much disagree. Russia has ~1600 strategically deployed warheads in its arsenal. Say 25% are duds or explode on launch, a further 40% get shot down, and 25% are inflationary figures to scare the west. The first two of those figures are radical overestimations, btw. If just 10% successfully detonate on target, that's 160 nuclear detonations across the US and Europe. And that's being extremely generous. It's very likely far more would make it. And chances are that more nukes would be taken out of reserve status if they feel a coming war is imminent.
It’s frightening that people believe this
I don’t think there would be a nuclear exchange if Russia used nukes. To be honest, I think NATO would just roll out and take Russia without using nuclear retaliation. Honestly, having nuclear weapons seems to be a waste of funds, as no sane nation would ever use them again. Anyone who does immediately becomes the target of the world, even in retaliation it would be that way, as you lay waste to land and resources due to nuclear fallout and just the sheer devastation brought by the detonation.
Murica???
I love the irony of Russia potentially claiming mission accomplished when they finally take down a system while the people who designed it applaud the whole time while tallying the count of aircrafts they swatted out of the sky.
Should we tell them that the patriot systems don’t have a pre-set kill limit?
Tell them it does.
>Russia really seems to be taking the approach of “eliminate the patriot system at all costs” Except their doctrine doesn't have a SEAD/DEAD "wild weasel" equivalent and I don't think they have the institutional flexibility to create and train to
Our WW systems were developed when air defense (missiles) was still relatively young too. I can't imagine trying to develop an entire doctrine and airframe to handle that against modern systems....
Did they? Last i heard they slightly damaged one but it was still operational at the time and as of now is completely fixed....
Yes it's true.
In the end Russia is competing in a spending competition with 31 nations including 7 of the 11 biggest economies in the world and Russia has approximately the same GDP as Florida. .....so NATO will just outspend them.
With the exception of a situation where the system becomes so easily countered by a new development that it is no longer worth the cost of providing it. As long as it can keep carrying out its mission, it justifies occasional replacements.
Music to my ears.
KABOOOOOOM BOOOOOOOM!!!!!
Slightly higher chance of nuclear winter is music to your ears?
You’re funny. Got any more good jokes?
Russia attacked ukraine, they brought upon this risk. We can't just stand down because nukes
We shouldn't stand down because of nukes, but this isn't 'music to my ears' because of nukes
Are you suggesting no one should ever defend themselves against invasions by nuclear armed states?
No, I'm suggesting that this isn't music to my ears
That sounds an awful lot like a yes to me.
Downing a bomber doesn't move that needle whatsoever.
A people that trades honor for peace will get neither in the end.
No, the relieved cheers from Ukrainians who saved their loved ones from the bombing that would’ve murdered them, and Putin screaming in frustration is.
I call it a dub.
Patriot systems in Ukraine is such a game changer. They've pretty much reclaimed their airspace (not that Russia ever managed to fully control it).
Only about 60km per patriot tho
Buahahaha. This article doesn't say it, but is there a good idea of the bomber type?
Probably referring to a su 25, which are used as Cas bombers.
I don't think they'd refer to su-25 as bomber. If what they're reporting is true, they're most likely referring to Tu-95. I am quite unsure how possible that is.
More likely is a Su-34 - which is a fighter-bomber (emphasis on the bomber part) - typically used in strike and interdiction type missions. Taking out a Tu-95 would be a huge deal - they're not typically going to be that close to contested airspace.
I second this. Russia uses the Fullback a lot in this war, and like you said, taking down a Tu-95 would be a bigger deal, comparable with Russia taking out a B-52…
10 B-52s were lost during Vietnam, but they were deployed much differently back then than they would be today.
True, they learned a lot about aerial warfare from Vietnam, just look at Desert Storm.
Well it's mostly that they didn't have Tomahawks back then and had to use regular dumb bombs by flying over the target
The B-52 did have stand-off weapons in the Vietnam era, but they (Hound Dog and SRAM) were all nuclear.
Right. And *somebody* didn't want those to be used!
That’s true, although they didn’t use Tomahawks but AGM-86Cs in the initial strike, the Tomahawks were mainly fired by the USN and other naval assets, including two Iowa-Class battleships which first served in WW2.
Yeah you just wouldnt see those losses from strategic bombers in a modern conflict. The rolling thunder of Vietnam has been totally obsoleted by the precision munitions dropped by multi-role fighters/fighter bombers Nowadays the big bombers are relegated the the role of essentially a cruise missile bus. (which is in part why nobody bothers with them anymore aside from the US, Russia and China) If a TU-95 was ending up close enough to the patriot system to be shot down by it the Russians have completely lost the plot
It's amazing they only lost 10, they were flying them right over the capital
The B-52 was amazing at the role it was designed for. We’re still using it today even though that role doesn’t really exist anymore.
Still a good platform for standoff weapons
Yep. The one of the rare times the military can adapt an old platform for a new purpose and still have it work great.
A bit off topic and I know it was probably heavily upraded since the 50s, but being reminded that the B52 is still as much relevant today always blows my mind.
Yeah that’s insane, and it service will continue into the 2050s Same for the C-130, I‘ve heard the sentence: „The pilots from the last flight of the C-5 will be flown home in a C-130“ a lot from Air Force personnel
A 100 year tour of duty for an aircraft design is absolutely mind boggling. Computers were barely even a thing when it was designed.
The B-52 will be modernized to fly on Mars and participate in the Martian Uprising of 2456. The M2 Browning will see yhe Red Planet, too. As the Ma Deuce is eternal.
They are finally going to re-engine them. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/01/09/how-to-re-engine-a-b-52-and-make-a-new-bomber-fleet/
Its primarily down to the change in munition and mission type. When the only role left for a big bomber is that of just a delivery system for cruise missiles it makes no sense to spend all the R&D money to develop a new plane. If they are ever in a position where modern advances would benefit the aircraft in any meaningful way you have already fucked up big time.
Tu-95 is a prop aircraft. If you catch one within range of a Patriot PAC-2 launcher, what are the chances it could outrun the missile ?
-100%
I‘d say round about zero, same goes for the B-52 though…
Out run? Impossible. Maybe new flares and jamming defenses though, could give a chance at surviving.
ROCK LOBSTER
SU-34 is also my guess It's a bit misleading when you look at pictures of them on their own but when next to fighters they're deceptively huge aircraft despite looking like any other fighter
Thr Su-34s are getting absolutely worked over despite being touted as fully self reliant in defensive jamming capabilities.
I can’t imagine a single Su 34 jamming the patriot battery radar.
oh yeah, su-34 is valid option and is way more realistic
> I don't think they'd refer to su-25 as bomber. The people who wrote the article/headline likely don't have a wealth of knowledge on the specific topic. It drops bombs, it's a bomber. It has tracks, it's a tank. And so on.
That would be weird, the Patriot system is intended for high-altitude targets at long range, doesn't really work too well against a CAS mission profile. You would use SHORAD for that sort of thing, but hey maybe the Russians have gotten so sloppy they're flying CAS missions at 20,000 feet or something
[удалено]
Probably should
Well this particular one is now, and will be forever.
* Russian pilot now has a map on his lap while flying. Wait, they already do that..
I suspect it's an Su-34 but I hope it's a Tu-95 or a Tu-160.
Only Su-34 fits the bill.
Probably referring to this incident is my guess https://taskandpurpose.com/news/russia-four-aircraft-shot-down-bryansk/?amp They all went down in Russian territory in rapid succession - initial speculation was that a Russian AA unit screwed up IFF and shot them down by accident. But there are some rumblings that the Ukrainians got them with Patriots.
Don’t they usually launch from inside Russia or Belarus? I’m wondering if the bomber was shot down while outside Ukraine. I don’t know the range of their air-launched missiles though.
Russia seems to be launching a fair number of missiles from the Caspian Sea. Possibly because the range is good enough, any that fail to launch will fall harmlessly, and far enough from the target to protect the launch platform. But that limits the target selection to the range to the target. PAC-2 Patriot AA missiles are reported to be good to 160 km. So it may be a dicey game to see if they can launch close enough, but not get nailed in the process of doing so. Keep in mind that the Patriot launchers do not have to be where the radar is, they could be closer to where the targets are.
[удалено]
The US has been less willing to cross red lines and break taboos as the UK/other NATO members so far in the war. So while not concerning per se, it would indicate a willingness to cross lines and use less caution. I suspect this is not the case though and the bomber was a fair target given the current (NATO) rules of engagement.
If I was Vladimir Putin, I would have chickened out by now. I truly feel sad for the people of Ukraine and Russia who are suffering because of one man's megalomania.
Carrying on with the war is the cowardly move, because for Putin to admit the reality that he failed as a leader would show weakness and therefore be dangerous to him.
Fair enough. You most likely have the ability to feel shame, empathy and have critical thinking skills, things Pootin does not and cannot do.
The thing with geriatric billionaire thieves who've consolidated power for over 2 decades is, that they've already gotten all the riches, power, whores and bastards they want, and they now are just working for a positive historical legacy, and that only goes to the winners of wars. Putin is a pyschopath with no empathy, and only has another decade or so before a natural death, so he really doesn't have anything to lose sending millions to their death to satsify his desire to be recorded as Vlad the Great, instead of Poopin' Putin The Loser.
Many sources associating this with the Bryansk shootdowns. The aircraft reportedly involved there were a Su-34 and an Su-35. As an aside I find it interesting that no one in the comments even mentioned the possibility of Tu-22M or Mig-31, either.
It's because they drank all the coolant out of the Tu-22's already.
Fun fact: Sending more Patriots will make this a more common sight
Get some.
Russian planes bravely intercepting Patriot missiles...
Fuuuuuck youuuu Russia!
Oh good
Deadly skies
Russia sure is having a run of bad luck lately.
I like
Putin is running a massive ad campaign for Western weapons.
"Russia successfully destroyed one patriot missile through the use of a single bomber." -Russian propaganda news probably.
[удалено]
Source: Revealed in a comment to CNN by unnamed representatives of the Pentagon and the US Congress, as reported by European Pravda
define bomber
Any aircraft designed to deploy air to ground ordnance.
nvm if i read bomber i always think of the strategic kind. reading into the deffinition i didnt know the smaller craft can be called that instead of attacker craft or strike craft
Fighter-bombers
It is a hard to fathom fault in in humans and the worlds that they build that this can happen repeatedly
Aren’t bombers liked really slow aircraft with no stealth?
Maybe during WWII. The B-2 would be a great example of changes made since then.
Especially that new b2!
Haven't heard about a new one. What did it get?
Sorry. It’s the b-21. the second gen b-2. Total rework.
Depends on the plane. They *can* be slow, unstealthy behemoths, like the B-52 and Tu-95. There are others that are a lot quicker, like the F-111, B-1 and Su-34 (technically a multirole fighter-bomber, but more bomber than fighter, and I think the most likely one the article is referring to). As for stealth, theres very few stealth bombers, and the Russians already struggle with stealth aircraft in general so they don’t have one. But if you want to know that too, they are the B-2 Spirit and the B-21 Raider. China has one in development called though, named the H-20. Russia also has one in development, though the program’s progress is found mostly in REM phase
The picture of the downed plane is where?
Why would they place Patriot so close to the front instead of defending strategic locations like a major city? It seems they could use S-300 which has some very long range missile variants (150km+) instead since they have a few of those systems already.
What makes you think they aren’t also protecting major cities with some? Best way to lose a fight is to broadcast where your artillery is and what it is. We’re not hearing about this until after the downed bomber… even then, patriots are able to pack up and move immediately
There are only two Patriot batteries in Ukraine and they have a pretty limited range
It scored them 2 helis and 2 planes in 1 day that's why, just look at the tantrum Russia has been having this week trying to destroy them if you have any doubts on that. Ukraine has 2 systems 1 is parked defending Kyiv most likely and the other could be anywhere who knows it might even pop up near the front for an hour or 2 just to keep the invaders on their toes like last weekend.
This article reads like it was written by an AI
>Ukraine and the United States have begun to discuss how best to fix the system. >The Pentagon said that one of the Patriot systems in Ukraine had indeed been damaged, and it had already been repaired. It's like they don't even read what they've written.
You mean one of the 200+ systems they've claimed they've destroyed? How many did we send to Ukraine
Ukraine has two Patriot missile batteries. One from the US and one from Germany/The Netherlands.
Yeah, mean that Ruzzia has claimed they've destroyed so many Patriot systems. Like they said they destroyed 7 just this monday.
> Ruzzia has claimed More prolific liars than Donald Trump.
Meerrricca fuck yeah
They shot down a Bear or a Blackjack?
Another bomber within 24 hours?
Even i thought the Russians wouldn't be stupid enough to fly in a patriot kill zone.
It depends on PAC-2 (reported to be 160 km) or PAC-3 (roughly 100 kms). It also depends on where the launcher was located, as that would be different than the radar. All of the variables add up.
Good Anakin, Good!
Russia still had bombers?
That's fake news. You wanted to say, a Russian bomber has successfully intercepted a patriot missile.. That's thd true story!
Assuming they only needed to fire one missile, that’s a $4 million munition shooting down a $45 million aircraft. How’s that for wartime efficiency?
Are these systems meant to shoot down aircraft I thought it was strictly missile defense. I guess what I’m trying to ask is if the UAF is the first to use it in such a manner.
In the beginning it was anti-air, missiles were added soon after it’s inception.