Ukraine's Air Force used F-16 jets as part of its defense against Russia's mass missile and drone attack on Aug. 26, President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed during a press conference on Aug. 27.

Ukraine’s Air Force used F-16 jets as part of its defense against Russia’s mass missile and drone attack on Aug. 26, President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed during a press conference on Aug. 27.

Russia targeted 15 of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts on Aug. 26, launching over 200 missiles and drones as part of the largest-ever aerial attack against Ukraine.

. . .

F-16s gave “a very good result,” Zelensky told reporters. “As part of this huge attack, we shot down some missiles and drones with the help of F-16s.”

MBFC
Archive

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    4 months ago

    I think anything short of a ballistic missile against a “near peer” IS outdated tech at this point,

    I don’t think that would be an opinion shared by many. Short range ballistic missiles are exactly that. Short range aka “tactical”. One example of an operational US tactical ballistic missiles are ATACMS. These have a maximum range of about 300km. To get anything longer range that is a ballistic missile you go into “strategic” ballistic missiles. The problem with these is we use these for nuclear strikes. If you launch one of these, every country around the world will assume its nuclear armed and could respond in kind. There is no geopolitical concept of “Trust me bro, its just a conventional warhead”.

    The US loves its cruise missiles. Think about how extensively the Tomahawk cruise missile has been used over the last 2 decades.

    but doing rough napkin math gives about an hour from launch to impact. I still suspect the f-16s were more about anti-drone operations but, reasonable.

    Here’s the results of the latest missile attack on Ukraine from a couple of days ago:

    • 3 Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” aeroballistic missiles from the airspace of the Ryazan and Lipetsk regions - Russian Federation;
    • 6 ballistic missiles “Iskander-M” /KN -23 from the Kursk, Voronezh regions - Russian Federation. and from Crimea;
    • 77 Kh-101 cruise missiles from Tu-95MS aircraft from the airspace of the Volgograd region and the Caspian Sea region;
    • 28 Kalibr cruise missiles from surface/underwater carriers in the eastern part of the Black Sea;
    • 3 Kh-22 cruise missiles from the airspace of the Voronezh region. - Russian Federation;
    • 10 Kh-59/Kh-69 guided air missiles from Su-57, Su-34 aircraft from the airspace of the Belgorod region. and from the Mariupol district;
    • 109 strike UAVs “Shahed-131/136” - launch areas of Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Kursk, Yeisk - Russian Federation, Chauda - Crimea.

    Of those 236 weapons launched by russia, only 6 were ballistic missiles). 109 were prop driven UAV (drone). That leaves a whole bunch of cruise missiles and 3 hypersonic missiles.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      That is where the near peer aspect comes in.

      The US LOVES cruise missiles because we, basically since Vietnam, have consistently gone up against groups with significantly lesser technology (often the stuff that even russia doesn’t want anymore). It is the same logic behind how nightvision goggles used to provide an insurmountable advantage and are now basically normal kit against a near peer. Or how tanks were amazing for like… World War 1 and a few weeks of World War 2? And these days are ATGM magnets where a comparatively low cost infantry weapon can take out state of the art equipment.

      And that is kind of what we have here. russia needed to launch 127 missiles to get 20 though. That is when you start doing the math on whether the significantly lower costs make it “worth it” relative to a short-ish range ballistic missile. Same with any other technology in war.

      As for “if it is any bigger people will think it is a nuke”. That is nonsense and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars). Unless there is irrefutable evidence that it is an ICBM going a couple hundred kilometers into Ukraine AND Zelensky et al can get on TV in time? “Oh no. Whoever could have seen this coming? Hey putin, this is your last warning”.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 months ago

        That is where the near peer aspect comes in.

        “near peer” to whom? The USA or Ukraine?

        For Ukraine, russia IS near peer.

        As for “if it is any bigger people will think it is a nuke”. That is nonsense and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars).

        Who else besides nuclear powers do you know are operating a fleet of strategic ballistic missiles?

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
          2·
          4 months ago

          For Ukraine, russia IS near peer.

          Yes? And, as a result, Russia had to fire off 127 missiles to get 20 through. Which raises the question of if this is even a good use of resources/funds/material. Not sure how you missed that when I said it above.

          Who else besides nuclear powers do you know are operating a fleet of strategic ballistic missiles?

          Powers that spend a lot of money buying those from those nuclear powers? So… basically the same as it has been since the 1950s or so?

          Again, you seem to have missed where I addressed this exact point. So I’ll just repeat it

          and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars). Unless there is irrefutable evidence that it is an ICBM going a couple hundred kilometers into Ukraine AND Zelensky et al can get on TV in time? “Oh no. Whoever could have seen this coming? Hey putin, this is your last warning”.

          But hey, maybe that was confusing. If Russia launches a bunch of non-nuclear ICBMs at the US? We probably already started World War 3 when Russia shot up Alaska or whatever happened during this apocalypse timeline.

          If Russia fires a bunch of ICBMs at Ukraine? Common sense is that they aren’t nuclear (because of how close they are) but it is in NATO’s best interest to “wait and see” in the exact same way we did a wait and see when russia invaded Ukraine the past couple times. We only act if we have no other choice because nuclear powers engaging in direct war is already an endstate.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            4 months ago

            Not sure how you missed that when I said it above.

            …and…

            Again, you seem to have missed where I addressed this exact point. So I’ll just repeat it

            Huh. I’m curious how effective this conversation style is with others you interact with, but not curious enough to continue. I think perhaps we have different levels of respect for one another. If anyone else is interested in continue this conversation, feel free to pick up where I’m leaving. Have a nice day.

            • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zipEnglish
              14·
              4 months ago

              I respect those who engage in a conversation.

              I don’t respect people who actively ignore that the person they are “responding” to already addressed the point because you can’t get a “gotcha” any other way.

              But hey, good talk… not really but.