S300 would be more suitable for Ukraine than Patriot, change my mind

I would like you guys to entertain my thoughts, let me know if I am wrong.

I belive the S300/S400 (besides the oldest missiles) would would be more useful for the Ukrainian military than the Patriot.

I am not saying the S300 is better just that it would provide more benefits on the current battlefield situation.

Russia was not able to use glide bombs till about an year ago when the Ukrainians S300 ran out of munitions (max range of 200km+ and a max engagement altitude of 25-30km at that range)

By comparison the Patriot has a max range of 160km at 12km altitude, the range drops drastically when trying to hit targets above 12km.

Russian planes used for launching glide bombs like the MIG31 can fly at up to 25km height at mach 2+ speed giving the glide bombs up to 70km of gliding range.

Of course while the targets are on the front line while the patriot or S300 need to be at least 45km or 50km away from the front to avoid being in range for lancet drones and other systems.

The Russian figured out that lobbing bombs at the max distance from the front can be done without being hit from the patriot because a target at 50km+70km =130km and at 25km altitude exceeds the longest range for missiles available to it.

This was not possible when S300 with 200km+ missiles where available.

While the Patriot likely has a much higher successful interception rate the difference is that even if the S300 might have (example) a very low interception rate of only 60% while the Patriot 90% the ultimate result is that the Russians would not risk their airframes on a 40% survival rate but they are heavily abusing the ability to drop heavy glide bombs from beyond patriot range.

From all accounts the main challenges now are shortage of shells and the mass use of glide bombs which often deny cover.

What weapon can be provided to solve this issue?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What weapon can be provided to solve this issue?
    Minuteman II systems

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    TL;DR

    Russian glide bombs are a growing problem

    Patriot range just too short to hit high flying aircraft at range

    S300 range longer

    Even if patriot is much more precise than S300 the S300 can prevent the Russians from getting close enough to do glide bomb drops because they can't afford many aircraft losses.

    What weapon can Ukraine get from the new aid budget to solve the issue?
    can patriot range be extended?
    Any other solutions?

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Russia was not able to use glide bombs till about an year ago
    Yeah, Russia was not able to use something they didn't have year ago, fricking moron

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They had several types of glide bombs at least since 2018

      FAB-500 M62
      PBK-500U
      And a glide bomb called "Grom" that they claimed was able to glide over 100km (which is likely the design that in real life does around 70km)

      All these where reported in stock in 2018

      They just couldn't use rhem without risking being shot down on the way till Ukraine ran out of long enough range air defense.

      When they noticed the battlefield situation allowed them to use glide bombs with near impunity they begun making as many as they could and spam them.

      Still my point stands, Ukrainians want to be able to shoot down Russian planes before they can drop dozens of glide bombs on their positions or at least hit them enough that the Russians abandon this strategy which is particularly bad for someone defending in fortifications that could likely resist for months against ground attacks but would be destroyed by a 1500kg bomb.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >FAB-500 M62
        >PBK-500U
        >And a glide bomb called "Grom" that they claimed was able to glide over 100km (which is likely the design that in real life does around 70km)
        not a single such glide bomb is being used. The UPMK they are using right now was developed in 2023, because turns out, all their previous glide bombs were complete shit.
        >When they noticed the battlefield situation allowed them to use glide bombs with near impunity they begun making as many as they could and spam them.
        They are using them no matter if there's a threat to aircrafts, as Russian pilots dropping glide bombs on Krynky learned. All Russian aicrafts dropping glide bombs were shot down by Patriot, not S-300 so your premise is completely moronic

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >range drops drastically when trying to hit targets above 12km
    how does that make sense? the higher the target is the more the missile can climb and decelerates slower due to lower air density, of course that means it can't maneuver much but neither can a plane at high altitudes
    >This was not possible when S300 with 200km+ missiles where available.
    they never had such a thing, they had early 80s mid-development/provisional versions of S-300 with only 40-75km range 5V55R, 75km 9M83 on a rare S-300V and a very small number of 48N6E with a donated S-300 PMU1. PAC-2 and PAC-3 were an upgrade in all aspects not a downgrade
    >MIG31 (...) at mach 2+ (..) glide bomb
    I would love to see that, the sheet metal hobby project glide kits would disintegrate
    >What weapon can be provided to solve this issue?
    any medium range system you can supply missiles for which S-300 definitely is not

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      targets at higher altitudes does not require more energy

      Not to be rude but it is primary school math.
      Think of the distance between two points.
      If you fly close to the ground it's almost a horizontal straight line but if you flying both upwards and horizontal it forms a triangle and the hypotenuse is longer than the base.
      Also it is logical that you need more energy when fighting gravity.
      What you say only makes sense if you go so high that you practically orbit which is not case here (but applies to some intercontinental ballistic missiles)

      Just think throwing a ball at a building, if you need to hit the front door or a window 4 stories high which one needs more energy?

      >>The Ukrainians didn't have the 90s longer version missiles

      Correct they should not have had them at the beginning but I believe they received them quite early on from other S300 users. In particular S-300PMU-1 missiles which have 195km of engagement range which also explains many Russian planes shot down at quite long ranges at that time, (some could have been hit by the ageing S200 but the s200 should only be effective against slow and large targets today).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Not to be rude but it is primary school math.
        sounds great in theory, maybe we should cross check it with actual flight test data (velocity vs time parametrized with target altitude and distance)? climbing takes a few percent of missile energy but it's insignificant compared to how much you lose in supersonic flight

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Where did you get that graph? Do you have the report it is from? Preferably in PDF form.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Cиcтeмa зeнитнoгo yпpaвляeмoгo paкeтнoгo opyжия "Opшa" Teхничecкиe пpeдлoжeния
            https://disk.yandex.ru/i/yKVPTK9PscdYx

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >By comparison the Patriot has a max range of 160km at 12km altitude, th
    Patriot PAC-2 range is much more against high altitude target. Read public report about burgers shooting down britbongs Tornado in Iraq.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You need to divide all the range and altitude stats by 10 to get the real stats, every soviet/russian has fake stats on paper.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Anon you have been able to observe the performance of the S-300 and S-400 for two years now.Do you really think the paper stats are accurate?

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Who has the S300s that can be donated to Ukraine though? Turkey? They definitely arent going to give them up

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Turkey got S-400
      S-300 systems are used by Algeria, Egypt, Greece and Bulgaria

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    kits would disintegrate at high speed

    That's an interesting point you are making, I do wonder what is the max speed these glide bombs can handle. Altitude should not be an issue.
    However the fact that the Russian can hit the Ukrainian front lines dozens of times a day without losing dozens of planes requires the Russian to have the ability to lob those glide bombs from beyond patriot range and to do so you need to be able to glide them nearly 70km give or take. So regardless how they do it Ukrainian SAMs need more range.

    >>The solution is medium range systems

    What do you mean by medium? So far it's clear that 160km isn't enough (but we know it is nearly enough because when the Ukrainians moved back from avdiivka the Russian tried to push further with their glide bombs to hit the Ukrainian columns repositioning and they immediately lost several planes as they entered into patriot range, so the Russian safety window (where they are close enough to hit the frontlines and far enough to avoid being shot down with patriot) is probably less than 10km wide.

    Maybe it could be possible to slightly increase the range of patriot missiles?

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Glide bombs poses near Nafo TROON . Glide bombs contracts Nafo TROON after his peaceful monopoly. Glide bombs cases the swamp inside a profitable packet. A lake flies above a meal! Glide bombs instructs a fool without an amusing package.

    The electorate socks a cardboard ass. Glide bombs accepts throughout the soap. Glide bombs wages any separator past the treat. Nafo TROON stumbles under Glide bombs . Nafo TROON abides underneath Glide bombs . Glide bombs elaborates on top of a bug. Nafo TROON flips Glide bombs below an educational flesh. Near the hopeless teapot reflects Glide bombs . Before Nafo TROON loses Glide bombs . The designer peers within its fluffy metal. The record domestic specializes Glide bombs .

    Glide bombs glide bombs hypersonics quantum stealth glide bombs lancer lancer artillery Shells production chips lol cope seethe

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/stroke/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20350119

      Get help bro

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah. You don't get how people sound to native English speakers when they say something like glide bomb. They sound moronic trying to pretend to be intelligent.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >numbers that are continually proven wrong

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      He's using "glide bombs". What do you expect.

      For everyone else
      Almost all bombs are a glide form. They have fins and usually guidance.
      Even unguided bombs glide hence the fins.

      So just say bomb or unguided bomb. It's been around 110 years. Nothing special.
      It's like hypersonic missiles. Most missiles are hypersonic these days. They go above mach 5.
      Wow! We just call them missiles!

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Decent bait or complete moron, I can't tell anymore.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Also the sr 71 was stealth
    Grant invented aerial drones in 1864
    No cope cages made of low melting material works
    And

    TANKS HAVE ENGINE EXHAUST AND IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE OR IT WILL KILL PEOPLE

    SETTING UP A NET TO CATCH GRENADES ON THE BIKE OF YOUR BIKE IS A BAD IDEA
    WEARING NYLON FLAMMABLE CLOTHING INTO BATTLE IS BAD

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Don't use wikipedia. Real figures are classified. Wikipedia just has whatever is in the brochure which is a fricking lie. Patriot's performance is better than publicly claimed, that's why its slapped everything the Russians have. S-300 constantly underperforms and has a terrible rep. If it can hit a target that far away why can't it shoot down a single GMLRS aimed right at it?

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >s-300

    Everything you wrote, ALL THAT SHIT, is irrelevant as stocks of ancient sov-yet shit can't be renewed.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Read at least the TL DR

      The point isn't Ukraine needs more S300

      Is that Ukraine pretty clearly needs some SAM with at least 20% more range than the longest range Patriot missiles and it needs to be relatively affordable so that it can stop Russia from bombing Ukrainian frontlines with impunity.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, Ukraine needs F-16

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Modern Patriot interceptors (ie SkyCeptor) outperforms anything S-300 can handle. The only negative is cost of course. Which of course matters a lot for Ukraine which is spending like a quarter of the country’s entire GDP on military.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Only a quarter with their entire existence at stake? I'd imagine it to be much more.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is incredibly hard to go past 30%, in military spending even with a highly productive and diversified economy. People still need to eat, clothe and shelter themselves.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >By comparison the Patriot has a max range of 160km at 12km altitude, th
        Patriot PAC-2 range is much more against high altitude target. Read public report about burgers shooting down britbongs Tornado in Iraq.

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Any other western systems that could do the job of hitting Russian planes before they can drop their glide bombs which could be reasonably deployed in Ukraine?

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And another thing too — it’s simply not enough to catch these bomb trucks coming in at maximum range — interceptors will have a very hard time hitting those targets. At max range a missile has to be lofted way up into a ballistic trajectory and rely on momentum and lift to carry them through a glide-path into the target — and making turns dumps that residual energy hard, making it simple for something like a fighter jet to evade them (assuming the pilots have been alerted to the incoming threat). The actual effective range against a high-power, nimble fighter jet is going to be much less than the maximum range, called the "NEZ" (No Escape Zone), the range envelop in which a given missile is able to reach a given target while under powered flight. NEZ data is classified but it’s still safe to say that it will always be much lower than maximum range.

    Now, the Russian Air Force is an elite branch of the Russian military — the pilots of fighter jets and bombers are "important" Russians whose lives are valuable and therefore they have been historically very risk-adverse in flying sorties refusing to fly combat missions unless they are reasonably safe doing so. So, just having missiles technically in range may be enough to deter them from flying the usual bomb-truck sorties so you can’t say being at max range isn’t meaningful. It’s just that against fighter jets you need to be in the NEZ for AD to hard shut down the airspace.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This guy gets it.

      Being a pilot in Russia till recently was a very fancy position and highly coveted.

      So those who got those positions are often kids of powerful men or well connected people usually from Moscow or Saint Petersburg.

      Russia is very risk adverse to losing those guys as it bad for optics and planes are extremely expensive for Russia which has a GDP smaller than Italy.

      So even the low interception rate of the s300 would be enough to deter glide bomb attacks since it has sufficient range to hit them at their required drop range.

      Same thing could be achieved by having some F16 with Air to Air missiles with sufficient range.
      While a few F-16 would not be enough to change much in theory their presence alone would likely be a great deterrent for Russians using glide bombs as soon as their start to lose a few airframes.
      Also it would likely increase the risk of friendly fire with Russian own AA.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You mean S-300 range is fake? What is the point of this thread then?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Read again.

        The point is that the theoretical max range is affected by the type of target their manouvres and their altitude.

        Also the max range dose not guarantee hits within it's limit. There is a no escape range but it's shorter and classified.

        Anyway the point still is the same:
        If the Russians start to think they have a decent chance to be shot down they would stop dropping dozens of glide bombs a day because they can't afford to sustain too many aircraft and pilots losses.
        which would greatly improve the battlefield situation for the Ukrainians since the heavy glide bombs are extremely important for the current Russian tactics as it allows them to eliminate very entrenched positions or concrete buildings which would be very hard to do with artillery as it needs time to reduce buildings to rubble and they would receive counter fire while doing so.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Russians were dropping bombs on Avdiivka despite visual evidence of multiple Su-35 being shot down. Clearly getting killed in low numbers is no longer deterrence

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, you are getting confused on that instance.

        They were dropping bombs for weeks at safe distance without taking too much risk.

        The moment Ukraine deiced to pull breasts troops out (which happened in stages and took a while) the Russians got greedy and tried to strike the vulnerable retreating columns much further after the previous frontlines bringing the planes into patriot range.

        After a few losses they quickly went back to the previous tactics and haven't done the same in the breakthrough of last week even if it's a very tempting thing to do.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Protecting the FEBA from standoff weapons with ground based systems is a fools game, you end up needing heavier and heavier missiles while the adversary can just strap on a slightly bigger rocket to the bomb. Protecting the frontline needs aircraft.

    Also no way in hell are Russians cleared to release munitions above M1.0 lmao

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What weapon can be provided to solve this issue?

    F-22 to Ukraine

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *