You must log in or # to comment.
The also really hurts the “Russia is indiscriminately bombing civilians” narrative. If this many missiles are getting through, then the numbers of civilian casualties would be way higher than it is if they were aimed at civilian targets.
Israel really demolished that whole narrative at this point because we can now see what it actually looks like when civilians are systematically targeted in Gaza.
I read this article and it’s terribly written by someone who does not even understand the basics of how ballistic missiles or air defence even work, it’s most probably the worst article on the subject I’ve ever read (this is not an understatement).
Russia was likely to have modified its Iskander-M mobile system, which launches missiles with an estimated range of up to 500km, as well as Kinzhal air-launched ballistic missiles, which can fly up to 480km, they added.
The missiles now follow a typical trajectory before diverting and plunging into a steep terminal dive or executing manoeuvres that “confuse and avoid” Patriot interceptors.
It is a “game-changer for Russia”, said one former Ukrainian official.
None of this is new or game changing. The Iskander M (and the air launched version in the Kinzhal) have always had the ability to conduct terminal maneuvers like this. To suggest otherwise is to vastly underestimate Russian and Soviet aerospace engineering. The ability for ballistic missiles to conduct terminal maneuvers is also not new, the US Pershing-II ballistic missile is over 40 years old and could do this with its maneuverable re-entry vehicle. The Soviet OTR-23 Oka could also conduct some terminal maneuvers using it’s lattice fins and is also over 40 years old. So can ATACMS and it’s over 30 years old. This is not new technology nor is it game changing. The USA absolutely test their anti ballistic missile defence systems such as Patriot against maneuverable targets (there are photos of such publicly available), the technology has existed for decades.
ATACMS ballistic missile conducting non ballistic maneuvers
Image from the IR seeker of a Standard Missile-2 Block IVA interceptor of a maneuverable ballistic target, from 2001:
What is happening here is a cat and mouse game (which has been going on for almost the entire war) where Russia updates their missiles maneuvers to stress the engagement envelope of Ukrainian Patriot systems, and the USA updates the Ukrainian Patriot systems to better engage Russian missiles in response. All of this in software and mission planning, no hardware changes. The cycle repeats itself infinitely. This is the eternal battle between the sword and the shield.
Ukraine’s ballistic missile interception rate improved over the summer, reaching 37 per cent in August, but it plummeted to 6 per cent in September, despite fewer launches, according to public Ukrainian air force data compiled by the London-based Centre for Information Resilience and analysed by the Financial Times.
Interception rate ≠ engagement rate. Against ballistic missiles, an air defence system’s (regardless of if it’s US, Russian or Chinese) maximum range is more limited by it’s altitude ceiling (be it the maximum altitude of the interceptor missiles to the maximum altitude the radar can see) than it’s horizontal maximum range, due to how a ballistic missile works. According to publicly available information, a Patriot battery equipped with PAC-3 MSE interceptor missiles and in an RL-3 configuration has a maximum defended radius of 60km against ballistic missiles. This means that is physically impossible to protect the entire frontline, yet alone all of Ukraine and it’s key cities, from ballistic missile strikes given the limited number of Patriot systems and Ukraine’s large land area. Therefore, this also means that interception rate is highly dependent on what and where Russia is firing ballistic missiles at. If Russia fires a ballistic missile at a Ukrainian target that has no Patriot or S-300V battery defending it, there is nothing that can even try engage and intercept it. There have been previous months where the interception rate of ballistic missiles, according to Ukraine itself (unreliable source), has also been in the single digits, and articles like this (with almost the exact same arguments) have been written. This is extremely lazy journalism trying to read the tea leaves from data that journalists don’t even understand. Ukraine is not going to publicly share engagement success numbers.
Two missiles launched in that attack appear to have targeted the offices of a company designing and producing components for drone systems, said two officials briefed on the incident. The Russian projectiles eluded Ukrainian air defences and also damaged the offices of the EU delegation and British Council, which were located nearby.
This was captured on camera and was a cruise missile attack, not a ballistic missile attack. This is, again, very lazy journalism by the Financial Times.
Ukrainian air defences are obviously being stressed and Russian missiles (both cruise and ballistic) are getting through, but an article like this has been written every few months over the past three years by journalists who have refused to educate themselves on the basics. They can’t even tell the difference between a subsonic cruise missile and a ballistic missile after over three years of reporting on this conflict. That is embarrassing.
I wouldn’t analyze it too much. It’s always just been propaganda. What’s notable is them admitting that Ukraine barely intercepts anything at all for a change.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
B…b…but people on Reddit told me Russia is about to collapse and the heroic Ukrainians are about to win any day now!
It’s really a testament to the power of western propaganda that majority of the public still doesn’t understand what’s happening three years in to the war.
They’ve always been lying about their interception rates.
Yeah, I’ve never taken the whole we intercepted 99% of the missiles thing seriously. The fact that they’re now flat out admitting realistic interception rates suggests that the situation is really bad indeed.
Ukraine should invest in more grannies with pickle jars to take down these rocket-propelled shovels.
