Are cruise missiles obsolete? Posted on May 1, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Are cruise missiles obsolete?
No, only r*ssian ones
Throwing handfuls at a time into prepared air defenses certainly seems to be.
Was the entire attack really only eighteen missiles?
Did they really need to send fifteen Tu-95 for that?
Better to spread them out when you only have so many missiles I guess. If somehow one gets shot down its embarrassing enough. If one happens to get shot down and the blocks the entire money shot, whew lad I can't even begin to imagine the salt.
huh, i swear i saw this same exact thread 404 two times by now.
What are they shooting them down with? Asking seriously I’m curious
Ukraine had a lot of soviet AD systems of their own, and their cities are guarded by the best western air defense systems such as NASAMS, now Patriots, IRIS-T, etc.
There's been confirmed cruise missile kills all the way down to MANPADS and ZSU-23 units, so the answer is "everything that can shoot up". Patriot, NASAMS, S-300, I-HAWK, Gepard, Starstreak, Ihor blasting wildly at the sky with Toyota mounted quad Maxim, etc
>What are they shooting them down with?
Doesn't the Kh-101 typically cruise at about Mach 0.6 at a couple hundred meters at best? I'd say just about anything will work.
The Ukies have released a few videos of guys with random MANPADS knocking them out of the sky. There isn't a lot of video material of anti-air guns firing, but those can probably do the job too.
Launching those slow-ish missiles from very unstealthy, loud as fuck Cold War era bombers also pretty much guarantees the Ukies will know they're coming.
I've heard there is a 1-2% chance couple guys with an MG can shoot them down.
Just stick a couple hundred people around in the path and that probability rises significantly.
I'd guess it's because anti air guys are very intel sensitive.
But I do wish to see them in action.
I saw at least one clip claiming to be from this latest raid on Kyiv, and it kinda looked like they were using some sort of rapid firing heavy flak, like they'd dragged ZSU-57s out.
Patriot and NASAMS.
Vatmorons won't tell you this but literally tge entirety of Saddam's big misdile rain on Kuwait was annihilated by Patriots
I don't think Russia has anything better.
There are two kinds of cruise missile usage:
1. Overwhelming first strike. You take the enemy by total surprise with far more missiles than they could possibly counter or deal with, striking preselected military targets. This is best backed up by air strikes and SEAD.
2. Cope cruises. You have completely lost air superiority and have been reduced to lobbing cruise missiles into enemy cities like a monkey throwing shit across a river. You may as well launch the missiles into the ocean for all the good they do you.
Not the application but the technology within.
Probably only 1 million down the drain if we consider actual exchange rates.
>$13 million each
must have pulled that number of their asshole or they're going by how much a AGM-129 were for a guessimation
195M is nothing... we hit 3 places each worth more. this is all calculated by smart people higher up
Looks like those sci-fi series with missile swarms were right. You need to launch in waves to overwhelm defenses.
It's going to be so funny when war with china happens and ships of both sides can't sink each other because missiles drop like flies.
This was always the case. There was nothing particularly magical about missiles that made them immune to AA. They just move very quickly. That's it. If you catch up to them, or are lucky with obsolete AA, you can shoot them down.
Nah AA just 20 years ago was very mediocre at intercepting missiles. We went from 20% rate to 95%. Soon it could be near 100%.
20% isn't that bad. That means one in five attempts succeeds. Again, there was never anything magical about cruise missiles.
There's advances cruise missiles can make in response. I've never seen a cruise missile drop decoys for instance, but there's no reason you couldn't. Imagine a hypothetical missile system:
>1000lb warhead replaced by 10 radially mounted ADM160s (works weight wise, might be fewer decoys volumetrically, but you get the idea)
>fire one for every salvo of 10 Tomahawks, doubling the effective number of targets for a 10% decrease in warheads delivered
>slam the airframe into the enemy anyways like a Slapchop Hellfire, or give it EO sensors and some extra loiter time to act as leader of a munitions swarm
Or be lazy and do things the Russian way and just slap a giant fucking liquid rocket motor on your 5 ton missile like Kh-22 to drive up the required speed and cost of interceptor missiles. Or both! The world is your oyster to hit with cruise missiles!
>anon thinks he's the first one to think of cruise missile decoy systems
The vatmorons have systems of their own, but I can't remember the name of them off the top of my head
>The vatmorons have systems of their own, but I can't remember the name of them off the top of my head
Why aren't they using them then and if they are, why aren't they effective?
Who the fuck knows, but if I had to hazard a guess I'd assume it's because they've either been cannibalised for parts for explosive armed misisles, stored incorrectly/poorly, or have been sold off to the highest bidder. It's Russia, it could be anything really
None of those are submunitions like I'm describing. Iskander has decoy submunitions, for instance.
Real shit is when we have ship or truck-deployable laser missile defense
At that point the era of missile spam is officially over
Highly reflective coating can handle 1 MW/cm2 continuous laser or 400 W/cm2 pulse. Are expected practical lasers in the near future going to have ability to overcome that?
Layered defense probably.
Stealth gets defeated by lasers.
Kinectics can see and react to reflective at longer distaces.
Fast and full spectum stealth does not work well together.
Stealth and Heat dissapation/material requirements at higher speeds dont like each other very well
They had decent penetration at the time but it was due to 2 reason Sadam removed weight fucking up balance on SCUDs gave them range but made them unstable in flight making it less accurate but harder to hit.
Then there was that strike on a US base that happened becuase an internal clock drifted 3ms causing a 600 foot miscalulation for intercept.
They are alot better now not running on 80's tier computing power for calculations.
>both sides open the war with massive missile salvos, depleting their own arsenals against enemy interceptors
>surface combatants begin regularly closing to gunnery range, carriers run air defense sorties but have run out of AShMs and won't risk their planes dropping dumb bombs
>China begins building BBs in response, America builds BBN 2040
Battleship bros we are back!
>AA advancements mean battleship shells will be intercepted
>ships will have to come alongside and board enemy ships
Marine bros we are going home
>16"/50 sabot rounds, 90mm thick, two meter long DU rods traveling at mach fuck you with a kinetic energy of lmao
Good luck intercepting it
just shoot your own 16" sabot round at it, whoever runs out of ammo first loses their battleship
>16" discarding sabot
John Ringo is a certified retard
that thing is made for shooting down alien landing ships
Yes, I read the books. He's still a retard.
.. are you some kind of a masochist then?
>boarding when you can just ram the enemy ship and sink it or use a submersible to plant an explosive against it
My brother in Christ. If we declared everything obsolete whenever Russia fucked up the usage and made it look worthless, we'd have no weapons left.
Why aren’t decoy missiles a thing? Can’t you make a very cheap missile with just the bare tech to fly straight and no payload to lure antiair and make them spend valious missiles on your decoys?
Anon, if it can already fly 600km, you might as well add a cheap warhead to
No such thing as cheap cruise missiles honestly.
Based on Russian performance in this war on diferent dates you can make the case that war is obsolete due to bad performance.
Honestly these assessments are retarded.
This missiles cost russia basically nothing like the US cold war stock costs basically nothing.
More so for the russian weapons however as the USSR made them.
The cost is inflicted from restocking than expending.
This may seem like pedantanics but the long term ramfications are going to be intresting.
Remember when the russians were buying back arms from the third world from triple the costs.
The problem is the world has gotten used cheap russian surplus becuase it was being sold as a raw resouce by theives (IE it was sold for how much it costed to loot and transport plus risk divorced from the reality of production costs)
Now that the entire soviet stockpile is being burned and warlords are suddenly buying back weapons at double cost to resell to russia at triple or more to the russians gambling the price will drop back to histoic levels after the war.
Only unfortantly for them those histoical lows only work when you can get said weapons in large numbers without producing more.
Era of 75$ AKs 300$ RPGs and 3$ 1000 rounds of ammo is over for third world miltias.
moron the kh-101 entered service in 2012.
Ah got those mixed with the Kh-55 my bad.
Rest of my points still stand.
If this is true, then yes. I think ukraine lies as much as russia because they are russian too, so im skeptical.
So, anything else with such large stand-off range that is air-launched, has the option between high payload conv and nucl, has low-altitude terrain-following guidance, can be hypersonic and act as precision munition? What combines these features, is cheaper to produce and can readily replace cruise missiles?
>hurhusdhuisnd brosss it dy so it obsulete!!
>each one of those costs 13 million.
Goyheed margin doesn't operate in Russia, it's a US company.