Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Russia - threadbanned users in OP

Options
1284928502852285428553691

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,035 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    Because if you don't have a target in the first place, sending a warhead to a random position in the hope it will be shot down is a needlessly reckless move



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    The decoys are typically older-generation missiles with lower accuracy. Maybe inertial guidance only. They wouldn't have been very accurate to begin with, but they are worse now due to age. They are no longer useful for hitting targets, but they can fly and they show up on radar, which makes them useful as decoys.

    They have no warhead because they're not headed for a specific target, they are just flying in a general direction. Contrary to popular belief Russia does not want missiles with warheads landing randomly on civilians.

    Russia sometimes use these decoys as part of a large wave of real missiles. Other times they use them on their own.. so they're monitoring the flight-path to see if any radars turn on.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,804 ✭✭✭Wolf359f


    I was waiting for someone to use that as an excuse. You actually think Russia would consider that? So after 80k war crimes, Russia is suddenly thinking an armed decoy would be reckless?



  • Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    lads, you need to start linking stuff if you're going to make claims.



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    It's interesting that they are billing the Counter Offensive up. The last big counter offensive, there was a lot of talk about Kherson but it was really in Kharkiv.

    The Russian offensive never happened. You'd wonder what the thought process behind the clear telegraphing of the offensive is.

    Russia now look to be digging in and preparing.

    Is it a bit of 4D chess to get them into defensive positions, bore them to death, have them drinking and rowing with each other and they disintegrate when they Ukrainians really roll in?

    There's a feint somewhere in there and I'm struggling to work out what it is.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,035 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    What other reason would there be to use decoys? Keep in mind the warhead is by far the cheapest part of the missile



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,928 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Russia did have a offensive, it just didn't get very far.

    Last year the Ukr feint on the South to attack North East was very smart, but generally that type of move will only work once.

    The coming Ukr counter-offensive may happen, it may not happen, we don't know the state of it nor the full state of the Ukr military at the moment (plus logistics). On the one hand there are clues they are really gearing up, on the other, as always in war, there are many issues/challenges they are facing. Just the mention of it has almost certainly caused the Russians to dig in. If the war stayed a "stalemate" this year, I wouldn't be surprised. Yes, Ukr is on a timer, but there's also vast pressure on the Ru military, with many cracks showing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    It's was reported since Saturday but by all accounts nothing has changed and no Ukrainian movement in bakhmut,

    Another one of these it was posted on social media, but then parroted around



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling




  • Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    if you have a profile of a missile (height, speed, additional info such as launch site) you can make a guestimate of what guidance system it will be using.... feeding this into an AA setup, your radar may detect the missiles radar, or have additional sensors for additional guidance mechanisms

    putting all this together, you can deduce the following:

    -certain missiles with certain payloads will more likely fly at certain heights and speeds, with certain manoeuvrability profiles

    -certain missiles will have more active sensors for precision munitions... if GPS/Glonass is actively being blocked, other active, detectable, guidance mechanisms are used (unless it's inertial, which most likely won't be on target)

    meaning you can come to a high probability conclusion as to whether its a decoy or not in some scenarios



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,065 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    You say "Contrary to popular belief Russia does not want missiles with warheads landing randomly on civilians."

    All the multiple photographic evidence of mangled city landscapes in Ukraine, would kinda point the opposite way comrade. Russian military seems intent on destroying as much civilian infrastructure as it possibly can. And if they wipe out the Nazi mothers and children as they see them in the process, well it's a double win from their perspective.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,455 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Yes there's that, but suppose that the Russians launch 100 missiles and say for example 50 are unarmed duds and of course as Ukraine cannot take chances on which are armed and which are unarmed, they have try and destroy them all with consequent loss of their own missile stocks. But on the positive side ( such as it is) Russia has depleted their missile stock by 50 missiles, which means that's 50 less bombs they can drop. So does this also indicate that Russia is running out of bombs for their missiles??? Or do they have unlimited "Blank" missiles stocks, just waiting to be armed?



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The US manufactures its own decoy missiles

    the very fact they are firing decoy missiles should not be read into (by itself) as Russians simply must be out of warheads. Match the alleged decoy with a missile model and work from there.

    The TALD was used with great success in the opening stages of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, with the first being deployed in combat by Lt. Jeff Greer. More than 100 were launched on the opening night of the war. This prompted the Iraqi air defense to activate many of its radars, most of which were then destroyed by anti-radiation missiles.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,035 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    The warhead is the simplest part of the missile and likely the one part they have the least problems producing, so the idea theyd waste missiles of which they have few just to save a warhead doesn't really make sense.

    Guidance and propulsion systems are far more onerous to produce than the warhead



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    It is absurd to suggest without more evidence and analysis that these were nuclear missiles with removed warheads. It doesn’t seem very logical for Russia to reduce its number of active nuclear missiles even for what’s becoming a huge quagmire for them. It flies in the face of MAD doctrine. If foreign monitors spotted a nuclear rated/capable missile leaving Russia we’d have had a very different set of circumstances last night.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭fly_agaric


    On the air defence thing, I think it was coming from reports on the leak of US secret documents (?). One of them claimed Ukraine is running low on ammunition for their Soviet air defence systems (S300) [e.g. below link], which is not really a shock if true.

    Would expect the ex Soviet equipment is not sustainable long term unless it is something that the former Warsaw pact states in Europe can make large amounts of now to keep them going (or something worthwhile for their backers to try and increase production of). To me it seems they need to be moving over to NATO weapons Western countries backing them can support fully into the future (incl. aircraft), regardless of all these nebulous remaining fears of Putin going (more) crazy or Russia collapsing into chaos if the Western weapons Ukraine gets are somehow "too good/too much" and provoke a rout.

    On the artillery, no link but [same as yourself] anything I've read over last while says Russia is not as profligate as it was being a few months ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 510 ✭✭✭AerLingus747


    you've answered your own query there...

    The most advanced part is the guidance system... if they are struggling to produce accurate guidance system boards, or if their existing guidance mechanisms are known and being countered by Ukraine, why waste a warhead which will:

    • get shot down
    • miss and end up somewhere innocuous under the guise of "terror" (this can be easily flipped to inept)

    While the payload may be the cheapest... explosives needs to be mixed, cured, transported and fitted.... any slips in supply chain mean massive delays.. meaning it may not be readily available..

    it is also a heavy part of the missile, which requires more fuel (also a valuable commodity which may be in short supply)


    It makes sense to lob cheaper, easier to procure blanks, which will reduce Ukrainian AA stockpiles in the process, giving higher probability of a target hit with active missiles



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    “Without more evidence”

    This is a start now go and analyze which decoys actually fell last night.



  • Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    @fly_agaric On the air defence thing, I think it was coming from reports on the leak of US secret documents (?). One of them claimed Ukraine is running low on ammunition for their Soviet air defence systems (S300) [e.g. below link], which is not really a shock if true.

    They also have only limited number of western Air defense missles ,one suggestion is they may only have 30 days supply at any stage ,

    This is why when you look at the Israeli Iron dome system probably the best multiplayered air defense systems in the world, looks great on videos but it also very expressive to operate and kept supplied with ammunition,so it there is no mass threat to life it generally won't get activated,

    While we hear reports and claims Russia is almost out of missles and artillery they are still firing missles, decoys or other which in turn the Ukrainans have to engage because they can't tell whether it's a decoy ,dud or live warhead coming,

    The same applies to Russian artillery it's low they can't produce it yet listen to the soldiers in bakhmut and elsewhere Russian artillery comes day and night,

    Which suggests that they aren't as bad we we all hoped or people claimed



  • Registered Users Posts: 82,433 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I can’t dispute that but hoping that they’re so short on missiles they’re depleting their own nuclear capabilities, seems yknow, very optimistic. Even if it’s true I’d wait to be pinched to believe something so scintillating. That said it’s not as if the US itself doesn’t have nuclear weapons that deploy on otherwise conventional missile vehicles like the tomohawk etc. so it’s not infeasible Russia would Rob St. Petersburg to pay Paul.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,574 ✭✭✭✭Francie Barrett




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,579 ✭✭✭Field east


    Why would the UKr initiate the offensive by attacking the first , second and third defensive lines. That seem s to be all the talk here and the difficulty of breaking through it with its dragons teeth, mines , deep trenches, etc. Could the Ukr not, first of all , use the new armour, tanks ,etc, with longer ranges than befoore attack Moscovy supply lines, equipment , arms stores,etc BEHIND the Moscovy defence lines.

    as a aside , do the Ukr also fire decoys to locate where the Moscovy radar systems are?



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,928 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    As was mentioned before, several missiles showed signs of being much older models, used for nukes, but with their nuclear warheads removed. They've already dug deep for tanks and other munitions so I wouldn't be surprised if they were dipping into some of their ageing nuclear stockpile.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,035 ✭✭✭timmyntc


    "The Ukraine" is what Russian speakers call it lol

    "Why dont they just skip 3 lines of russian defences and attack their supply lines instead?" Correct me if im wrong, but was a teleporter one of the equipment transferred to Ukraine by the west? I dont think so



  • Registered Users Posts: 20,047 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Hope everyone was hurt.

    All this talk of the offensive starting: It likely started weeks ago. It's not like a horse race with gates opening suddenly and everyone's off simultaneously, there's preparatory things like taking out air defence assets, a bit of sabotage here and there, crossing the Dnieper, probing actions, reconnaissance. I think there's a couple psy ops underway, playing down and misstating capabilities. At some point when the muds gone and the prep works done there will be larger troop and mechanised movements.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,484 ✭✭✭Fighting Tao




  • Registered Users Posts: 12,408 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    There's a theory,I think it's interesting. That Russia is trying to goad Ukraine, into starting the offensive early. That's explains the increased strikes.

    All Eyes On Rafah



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    They were reported to use KH-55s as decoys.

    This is a 1980s cruise missile. There were several variants, some which took nuclear warheads.

    The Soviet Union built thousands of KH-55s in the 1980s. However in the late 80s they began downsizing their nuclear arsenal. So they ended up with a surplus of KH-55s - more missiles than warheads. That's decades ago...while some KH-55 are still operational most are mothballed.

    The fact that Russia would be willing to "waste" some as decoys doesn't tell us a whole lot, other than they figure these old missiles are not good for much else. They are not really degrading their nuclear arsenal, they already have newer Kalibr cruise missiles which are also nuclear-capable.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 51,282 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    What I read about the decoys is that Ukraine has to prioritise shooting down missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads, they can't take a chance they are decoys. It means ukraine focuses on the decoys first while it's more likely the missiles with the actual payloads get through.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement