Let me see if I get this correct. Ukraine targets kherson bridge. Russia defends it. Yet the Ukrainian missiles successfully denies continued use of the targeted bridge. I would say that was a 100% successful objective for Ukraine offense and a 100% failure for Russia defense objective for the bridge. 1 to 0 for Ukraine. Go Ukraine go.
Go Russia go it's all USA fault why are they putting missiles on Russian doorstep by expanding NATO Russians army didn't put missiles in Mexico ........
@@chrisgac4989 each HIMAR rocket is $100k not $900k.... they are not trying to completely destroy the bridges, just prevent heavy equipment from crossing
Seems logical; the tube has little mass once the propellant is exhausted, while the warhead can still steer itself on to its target. At the speed of the GMRLS, it must be extremely tough to hit. I can't see any reason the warhead should not have countermeasures, eg. jinking.
@@clivewarner2162 You and Jack just presented the case for the "Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb" (GLSDB) The basic idea is to take an MLRS rocket with an obsolete warhead and replace the warhead with the "Small Diameter Bomb" (SBD) guided glide bomb. This basically turns it into a GMLRS but with more range and maneuverability. (it's probably cheaper, too). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb#Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb_(GLSDB)
@@jeffbenton6183 I can not understand why the US and NATO have not purchased the GLSDB in massive quantities. Maybe they think the glide bomb is too slow, and vulnerable. It seems to me that the GLSDB with the Stormbreaker glide bomb would be a phenomenal weapon. Imagine being able to take out tanks from 60 miles away simply by getting eyes on them (drone or spotter) and calling in a standoff strike.
@@shooter7a The US generally doesn't have as much confidence in rocket artillery as it does in its air launched munitions so money usually goes to the Air Force. This also makes sense if we they have to fight on the other side of the world. Logistics will benefit those systems that can be rapidly deployed and transported. NATO usually didn't have the money or the experience of combat to buy any weapons system in mass in any real sense.
A different video showed five holes in the paved surface of the bridge - two on each end of the bridge and one a little closer to the center of the bridge. These were indicative of unitary warheads. The lower light flashes in the air are a sign of a proximity fuse causing the interceptor missile to explode - these were apparently “misses”. IOW, the interceptor missile wasn’t close enough to the incoming target missile to destroy it. The one bight flash was likely a hit by the interceptor missile, causing the destruction of one HIMARS or MLRS missile. That would account for the firing one pod of missiles (six). Five hits one the bridge and one missile intercepted midair and destroyed. 👈
I don't find this surprising at all Russia has a history of over-hyping it's capabilities always has done always will do but they never deliver on the hype when it comes down to military action.
The warhead only makes up a small part of the rocket. The other parts serve as support for the warhead and protection from proximity fuses. So the incoming apparatus can be intercepted by a proximity fuse AAM, but unless it detonates the protected warhead in the rocket and if close to the target it is unlikely to have the desired effect, due to momentum of the rocket travelling at ~3,000km/h. An AAM that is a 'hittile' may have more probability (due to kinetic energy when hitting) that the rocket warhead is detonated before the target is reached. Pantsir ammunition has both contact and proximity fuse but intercepting something with a speed of Mach 2.5 is tricky. It was designed to guard against low flying threats, not ballistic threats. S400 and S300 SAMS have a greater explosive yield with a proximity fuse, but during the closing stages the missile uses active homing which means it is looking for a radar signature. If the missile reaches a 'missed' state, the fragmentation field can be directed to the target or conform to symmetrical detonation.
Experience has shown that only hit to kill works. The US Patriot PAC-3 has a record of 238 or more hit to kill intercepts against incoming missiles in Saudi Arabia. The Russian S-400 still persists with proximity fused warheads.
Never let the enemy rest.. Make every shot count, show no mercy !!! The ruzzun orcs are a failed people, a human disgrace and may they rest in many pieces.. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
Sams are designed primarily for fast jets and don’t work well if at all on Himmers coming in fast at that trajectory the only system out there is the American Patriot
@@sotilaskarkuri I am not aware because the Iron Dome system is not a complete failure. No other missile defence system has shot down as many missiles as Iron Dome. In fact the changing tactics of Hamas show that it effective, because if it was not effective they would not have changed their tactics.
You didn't say it explicitly, but the problem is that the russian/soviet SAM's simply are not programmed to recognize HIMARS missiles. . This video does a really good job of demonstrating the problem. Basically, since the SAM does not recognize the HIMARS missile, the operator has between 5-30 seconds to manually recognize the threat and trigger a launch. Takes training. He also makes the point that russia can update programming, but it will take time to develop (and debug) the code and more time to distribute the update to the field. . 2022 07 15- HIMARS on Russian Radar - how does it get through? ua-cam.com/video/ceskPbDtTzY/v-deo.html
The Antonovsky bridge is 1.3km long of this around 700m is over the water. Hence place a CIWS with HE rounds cluster type i.e. first burst into cluster/cloud and only then explode...........at every 100 meters or so. As soon as radar detects the incoming then Pantsirs are in action with their missiles but CIWS also go live firing HE spread out rounds over the bridge. The radar detects the rocket and calculates the time of hit to be say 20 seconds, the CIWS go into action after 15 seconds. Even if a HIMARS rocket gets through Pantsir missile, the flood of HE rounds either kill it or damage it enough to deflect it from the bridge.
Kremlin controlled news agency TASS confirmed earlier that contracts have been signed with defence manufacturer Almaz-Antey to supply the 100% effective S-500 missile systems. Enough washing machines and microwave cookers have been 'liberated' from Ukraine and are being stripped for parts to allow a production run. The assembly chimps are fully trained and totally motivated to ensure the missile systems get to the front quickly. The contracts were signed off by Deputy Defense Minister Alexey Krivoruchko and Almaz-Antey Deputy CEO Vitaly Neskorodov, they gave assurances that every last ruble set aside for this contract will be spent correctly without any form of corruption, pinky promise.
of the 6 launched missiles, 2 reach the target, these are too expensive holes in the bridge and this shelling goes on for a week, and the bridge is standing
They want holes in the bridge but for it to still stand. So heavy vehicles cannot go to Kherson, but the soldiers in Kherson are tempted to flee across it.
What is odd, is that American Phalanx system look to be the best choice, it is better at missiles taking a linear approach than it is at taking jets down. They dont have phalanx, but it would probably be the best backup after the SAMs fail.
You ever hear the story about the Japanese CWIS test? They had a plane tow a target drone and told the phalanx to target the drone. After it had a kill on the drone it targeted the tow rope and followed it to the plane towing the target. The pilot was able to eject but a valuable lesson was learned that day. Can modern missiles jink? Yes. Can Phalanx fire 4500 rounds a minute? Yes. Can a CWIS be programmed to draw a circle around an approaching missile so any direction it dodges it still gets hit? Yes.
@@aaronbaker2186 Phalanx is not that effective in area defense. Hitting a target that changes direction (and is not moving straight at the gun) would be very difficult.
The Oerlikon Skyguard system would also work. 35mm rounds have their speed measured as they exit the barrel. They are then programed to burst slightly ahead of the target using a shaped charge to disperse tungsten cube pellets forward. This ammunition is called AHEAD. It's also guided with closed loop radar like Phalanx but has a big kill zone due to the AHEAD ammunition. I believe the only anti mortar and anti artillery system in service.
Good assessment of the situation here. One would expect the Russians to adjust their positioning or increase the number of units protecting this bridge. I'm not sure if this is the same bridge I saw a few days ago, it had been attacked and the clip showed how the Russians had installed reflecting decoys to the side in the water. Pity they hadn't done that sooner, hope it works.
At this point continued defence of the Antonovskiy bridge is a total waste of time as it has been rendered unusable by anything but foot traffic without extensive repairs that will takes weeks if not months to accomplish. However as Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake 🙂
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 Ok thanks. Must of been a different bridge I saw because it didn't look as damaged as this clip shows. Napoleon? Do you mean that puffed pastry frog who destroyed his army by attacking Russia. Don't think I would be taking much notice of that madman.
@@martinhastingsis yeah, Napoleon attacked Russia the way Russia attacked Ukraine. Edit it was probably the same bridge. What looks cosmetic to us laymen can be fatal damage. Need an engineer to tell. The holes in the surface are not the concern (or may not be) it is what happens to the support structure below. A quick patch job on the holes, drive a tank onto the bridge, and the whole thing goes in the water...
@@aaronbaker2186 Having built a couple or 3 bridges in my time; I am well aware of the possible structural damage created in the attack and Russian Engineers will be too. However it will only be a blib in any delay to Russias glorious defeat of your NAZI friends. Byebye Aaron haVe a ZZZZ of a day.
@@panemetcircenses510 Probably not before Ukraine runs out of SAMs. Just saying. This is a war of attrition. And Ukraine is expected to run out of supplies by the end of the year and that means game over for Ukraine.
@@Flying_Lexus run out of supplies? Are you serious with that comment? Do you think USA, UK and all of Europe have less supplies than Russia? Because that’s what your saying.
@@adz4u28 yes, I'm serious. USA, UK, and all of Europe are not sending enough for Ukraine to win, they're sending just enough for the war to go on for a bit longer. Majority of the aid is not focused on the military but rather on humanitarian aid and also they give money to Ukraine so that they can buy junk from US that the US do not want to keep maintaining. If you think Ukraine is going to be winning this war, you need a reality check. As I said, this is a war of attrition, and when it comes to attrition, Russia has the upper hand. Russia can still produce food and military goods, Ukraine lost majority of it's territory that used to produce food for the world export, their economy went down the drain. They went from one of the largest food suppliers in the world to a state that will most likely rely on foreign aid just to feed their population. So again, if you think that they're winning this war, you need a reality check.
Having worked around surface to air intercept systems I've got to say this is a very good breakdown of the attack. Thanks for the effort and thought you put into this! I'll be subscribing now.
No SAM system can stop kinetic bombardment, these rockets probably reach very high altitude before dropping at the intended target … thus increasing orbital speed to several Machs higher than the original …
@@martincardoso2494 ...Yes but the Russians have been claiming they stop everything the west has. They hype it up so much you'd think their s400s can shoot down Klingon warbirds orbiting Uranus .
This is one of the great example how effective western weapon is and how UA forces professionally apply it. The more ammo to Ukraine the sooner this war will end.
and you seriously think ukrainians will believe wokesters and their racist lies, and not turn their weapons on the west one day because woke jew is in charge in ukraine
@@divineantiwokegangster not fresh anymore, keep your russian propaganda for russian fools. Ukraine on other hand continues to liberate its mother land, thanks to western arms and support.
@Betty Swallocks what and where??? may be you should see the history of Israel....how it was formed Ahh leave it dat don't matter. What matter now is,donbass is in control of Russia just like Crimea 🙂 The end
They are doing fine, russian costumers dont really care for having a competent army, as long as they can kill civilians and opress the population its all good 👍🏻
I did see something saying that a lot of orders had been scaled back to bare minimum or totally cancelled since countries have seen how " good " Russian equipment is
That is insane how negative an amount of HIMARS (according to the Russian ministry of defense that appears to be not capable of counting to 10) can do to all the "superpower" Russian AA defense.
@@Deutschland8894 counting allied compatible systems they have quite a few. Really the number of missiles is the constraint, not the number of launchers-at least in the medium time frame. If the Russians were able to destroy any that would be different of course.
Russian claims on Himars are a standing joke, I've yet to see one destroyed, I'm well aware they aren't invincible , some are gonna be hit, up to now they're hiding them well, thing is, you don't need that many to make a difference if they all hit target🏴🇺🇦
Ah yes, because US have zero criminal records killing civilians, children, baby, bombing, napalm, chemical agents on village, Vietnam, cambodia, Irak, etc, etc. Putin is using your methods you must applaud?
Having seen the other (potato quality) video from the attack earlier that same night I'm giving the Russians a 1:20 hit probability at best. In the first attack all 6 GMLARS rockets went through and at least 12 SAMs were fired. And in this one 5 clearly went through with one likely intercept. So at worst they're looking at 1:32 which is obviously unsustainable even if they have 50 S-400 systems in the vicinity.
An s400 system costs 300 million they don't have 50 around anything let alone one base. Russia has like 50* s400 systems total. And a single s500 system sans missiles around Moscow iirc.
S-400 and S-300 are not even used vs artillery rockets. The BUK M3 System, with the 9M317M missile would be used. but even that system has problems, because the response time / human factors make it so difficult.
@@wadopotato33 Then why have we seen pictures of destroyed S-300 and S-400 systems from within Ukraine? And why would they only have their medium range Pantsir systems with a maximum range of 40km (And that's only for the recently upgraded versions. Most inventory still only has a range of 20km) when S-400 starts at 40km for the smallest rockets and extends all they way up to 400km.
@@andersjjensen S-300 maybe, S-400 you have not. They don't have any in Ukraine. They shot down a plane in Ukraine, but did it from Belarus. Here: "Russia’s S-400 long range air defence system has reportedly seen its first combat and gained its first kill during the country’s military intervention in Ukraine, engaging and neutralising a Ukrainian Air Force Su-27 fighter near the country’s capital Kiev according to a number of reports. The shootdown reportedly took place on February 25, a day after Russian military operations in Ukraine began, when the Ukrainian Air Force had yet to suffer more serious losses. The S-400 was reportedly not deployed to Ukrainian soil, but engaged and neutralised its target from the territory of neighbouring Belarus where Russian forces retain a large presence. There is no S-400 system in Ukraine. They have two that can reach into Ukraine, but do so from outside the Ukraine. Russia only has five S-400 units. Here: As of September 2013 the Russian Armed Forces had five S-400 regiments: two in Moscow, one in the Pacific fleet, one in the Baltic Fleet, and one in the Southern Military District.
But they only have M142 (HIMARS) and M270 (MLRS) in the country as of yet, so that narrows it down. But I've just come to accept that people think it's the rockets them selves (M31 in all probability) which are called "HIMARS rockets".
@@shooter7a indeed, and although the US has stated none of their supplied systems have been destroyed, i'm yet to see the uk and german governments state the same (though i may have missed them do it)
And there's another issue about those 19 missiles fired. That was probably a couple of months' worth of production. And the cost of the interceptor is several times the cost of a GMRLS missile. Russia is racing the clock here. They need to win before they run out of SAMs and other high-tech weapons.
@@peters6591 Here's an hour-long video that discusses consumption of ballistic and cruise missiles. It's an hour well spent because there's a lot to the subject. ua-cam.com/video/_F7mt4rNVY0/v-deo.html
Yup, I suspect those were self-destruct due to loss of target lock, if there was ever a lock in the first place. Here's a video about the overly complex S-400 system (which is the development of the S-300 that these probably were) which makes a lot of sense. The Russian boasts about system efficacy aren't lies, per se, but there's a reliance upon a complex interrelated system which I doubt is actually operational. ua-cam.com/video/McJAYZfhapo/v-deo.html
I don't thing the Russian management realize what they will be messing with if the USA comes knocking on Russia's door, they are very very secretive about new military advancement, and only a fool or a total bluffer would announce there most advance weaponry to the world.
@@matsuz100 The US, for reasons related to both democracy and deterrence, is relatively open about the existence and basic characteristics of most (but not all) weapons systems. And we do have a number of profound material advantages over the Russian forces, and more importantly a gigantic advantage in training and force professionalism. But this shouldn’t be surprising. Russia is a mid sized country with an aging population, endemic poverty, and pervasive corruption. Hardly a recipe for an effective military.
They can be. A similar situation was seen with the Patriot system when intercepting SCUD in 1991. The warheads were detonating, but as it wasn't designed to intercept high speed missiles, the fusing wasn't quick enough to detonate the proximity warhead before the missile had passed. Essentially Patriot was on target but the fuse and warhead were not optimised to deal with the target it was being asked to engage. The US addressed this rapidly with some updates, but also changed the missiles and system in later upgrades.
@@tomk3732 Uh...you might wanna check casualty rates..in 6 months Russia has 75,000 casualties, which is more casualties than the US suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the course of 20 years.
Yee, Vorchuta gulag, the second worst place in the world, waste of human lives, all the dead soldiers, knowing anything or nothing place of Sovjezki Sajuda? Are you pootin friend? 1.1-1.6 million dead ”raska”. Didn’t ya knew?
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Yes, I looked at casualties, US suffered around 60k dead in Vietnam. Russia so far (Russia proper) suffered at most 8k dead. Vietnam war was a colonial war, this is at peer war. Russia is doing very well. US fought an at peer war with Japan and Nazi Germany - lost 460k troops (!)
@@tomk3732 US dead in combat from 10 years of war in Vietnam was 49k dead. Ukraine has already confirmed 41k dead Russian soldiers from dog tags, not counting any mercenary dead, for anyone who doubts, Ukraine is putting all the Russian tags in a warehouse, and it's expected to fill it up completely
Against a missile, intercept time is crucial, a hit may destroy several systems on an incoming missile, but if those systems have already served their purpose, and the damage doesn't divert its flight path, and it's payload is not detonated short of the target, it's still an incoming projectile with its explosive or kinetic yield. Against a pilot, you might make him abort his mission if he takes damage. But a missile is naturally on a kamikaze mission as soon as it is launched. If you do not intercept a missile before it is on final descent to target, it's already too late, you might be able to detonate it with continued fire before it reaches the target, and that might reduce the damage the target takes, but what you are dealing with is a mass equation. If you shoot an elephant that's charging at you, the shot may prove lethal to the elephant, but do you really expect that to matter much if the elephant still falls on you? That's what it's like dealing with high-yield explosive and kinetic weapons.
Sorry Pal, you kinetic energy argument holds true only for one on one hit, but when cluster HE rounds are exploding then incoming rocket, artillery, mortars are mashed potatos in the air itself. The US C-RAM has proven it by stopping more than 90% of incoming rockets and artillery.
That would be stupid not to be prepared, there 100% prepared. They just can't lock on to the U.S.A made himars, and what's coming is even more devastating, they'll need to back up, way back. +++
What this guy is failing to mention is the history of russian air defense systems which, in Vietnam were very good. But 50 years later they are still using 1950's technology and expecting 1960's success. All russian radars are the same, using antiquated technology and expecting success. Yeah, it works in testing against their own missiles, but not when seconds count. If you look at how a radar for russia and one for the US look and the differences you see the problem. The ruskies still use 1950's slow oscilloscope type screens with their radar, they also use a flat horizontal screen (or placed vertically depending on the system) that use analog data. Very slow scan, very slow targeting. While the US uses high power computing systems. Take the Iran incident, Iran fired 13 missiles at US ships and all were defeated. The US hit and sank 8 Iranian ships that day. Iran didn't defeat a single missile, their radar was russian designed. The moscva sank because of the same issue. They use the same land systems on their ships which explains why they can't defeat anti ship missiles either. Even the newest russian air defense systems use 1950's oscilloscope screens for their radar. The fact they can't seem to understand their issue is the funniest thing yet. But like logistics, it's just over the heads of the russians.
That shsould explain why the most powerful air defenses of NATO could not intercept iranian missiles provided to Houthis ,to strike Saudi fields , even Saudi arabia had PATRIOTS defenses manned by US soldiers and were hit again and again and again their oil fields.. So is funny when people ignore the failure of US air defenses recently , and lets no say how IRAN bombed US forces in IRAQ too .. But the excuse "we don't have air defenses there" is laughlable , no nation in the world send their army into a hostile country without proper air defenses. Moral of the story , US air defenses digital panels did not helped US forces in any way to protect Saudi Arabia and not even their own Soldiers in IRAQ.. those amazing stealth drones NATO have ,neither survived in real pratice ,when facing IRANIAN outdated tech . that destroyed them so easily.. even captured a stealth drone and reverse engineer it. That was embarrasing indeed. At least the Russian "outdated weapons" defended their air base in Syria , not like NATO ,that it seems that whenever they fight seminaked soldierss with rocket grenades strike their base ,their technology brakes .and stop working , In Afhganistan ,a US based with hundreds of soldiers was strike too , by taliban missiles with many wounded soldiers.. lets not forget about that. either ,but the best one was how IRAN evacuated 3 bases in IRAQ ,that US forces were deployed by striking it with ballistic missiles.. if that was not embarrassing ,then no idea what is. The fact that US don't deploy bases in Ukraine ,(when they could do it) is because of fear of Russia hitting them . Russia hit the US base in Syria several times , targeting a zone of their backed Rebels they training them.. and nothing reported of that. Reality is ,you can't shield 100% of the time any place with air defenses . any system with digital shinny color displays or soviet era ones can be saturated with missiles.. So your intel and amd technology will not change that.. no matter how beautiful are the displays of your crappy PATRIOTS defenses ,that failed in Saudi arabia ,and failed in afghanistan too versuss ballistic missiles. and failed in Israel ,when SCUDS from IRAQ hit them dozens of times . The fact that Turkey ,Egypt ,Saudi Arabia ,who have patriots defenses , prefer Russian S-400s ,should tell you something about reality of which air defenses are better.. when even NATO countries prefer them to the NATO ones. INDIA too was offered NATO air defenses ,and was offered iron dome too ,but which system they choose? Russian S-400s.. So lets facts get in , before discussing how good or bad are Russian defenses.
@@technoartfest8708 lol, and now you are believing the BS spewed by those who want you to believe those systems don't work. Fact is they have shot down 95% of all missiles in range of the systems. The issue is there is and was a very limited number of systems there. Part of that is due to the fact that training crews to use them can take a year. Then add to it if the system is not on it obviously won't shoot anything down. 🙄 The Saudis have a very limited number of systems and trained crews. Also, newer systems are not available to the Saudis. The versions they are using are upgraded patriot systems that we left there from the first gulf War. The systems being used by our troops in Iraq now are two or 3 generations newer. The patriot is not perfect, and very different from the shipboard systems. The C-RAM system is the most capable land system as it can take out missiles, rpg's and even artillery rounds and can be autonomous and operate without human intervention although that is rarely done due to obvious reasons. There is also a huge difference between an SM-2 missile and a patriot missile. The SM-2 and SM-6 have been around for decades and have been successful every time they have been used. The only time they didn't work it was due to fact the system was not even turned on. The shipboard systems are always on now in certain areas of the world after the USS Stark attack where the system was off and it was supposed to have been on.
@@johnstark4723 The technology they are using is radio command to the missile with a radar tracking both the missile and target. It's the same as the Rapier Missile used decades ago. It's a system western miltraries have given up on. It's just not accurate enough.
@@johnstark4723 Note, the main air defence system of the moskva was in fact stowed, not deployed. Which is ironic considering your mentioning of USS Stark. They also do not use "50s oscilloscope screens", not sure where you heard this one. The systems are fine. The operators aren't. Oh and if you meant operation praying mantis, which is like the only one instance i can think of of USN sinking Iranian ships in any numbers, those were 6 vessels. Largest of which were a pair of _british made_ frigates. Then there was a french-made Tiger class. It way often happens that people go well out of their depth trying to prop up their favourites...
As far as the attack on the airport, I think Russian was sleeping on the job. In the video I saw, there were at least three missile strikes and most likely four. There was no visual I saw of the initial incoming strikes. After that there were a number of explosions that might have been related to explosives on the property. I don't think it was HIMARS that struck the airfield. That leaves a couple of other options that includes partisan support along with shorter range missiles near the site. If they can do it there, they may be able to do it to the bridge as well. Maybe one big target a week inside of the Crimea. Make it a no tourist zone. So far, Russia is still making headway on the perimeter. That has to stop before anyone can expect relief in the war.
I saw a theory that it was ATACMS that his the airbase since several versions of the missiles actually release cluster munitions. This would explain why some planes were destroyed and others seemed to be either okay or slightly damaged
@@chaosXP3RT - I have heard the same thing but that is still an American made long range weapon. I've also heard that it was a Ukrainian made weapon developed just for that purpose. Still, I have not seen any kind of visual showing an incoming missile. Someone will validate it sooner than later and we may well see it in action again soon. The sooner the better.
You only have so much of a reaction window in which to act, and that's assuming you haven't had too much vodka and you actually turned the system on in the first place!! 😉 Keep sending em Ukraine! 🇺🇦🇺🇲
I wonder if it's conceivable to launch an anti-radar missile at the same time that the HIMARS rounds are coming in: The Russians *have to* engage the rounds, which makes them ripe targets for the HARM to take out the SAM site. Is this plausible?
AGM-88 HARMs are air-to-surface missiles and it is still a bit of a mystery how the heck the Ukrainians are firing them, as they're only compatible with NATO plane mount-points and control computers. But since they've acknowledged that they have them, and have used them, then yes, a coordinated attack would be possible. But currently it looks like Ukraine is keeping them in reserve and just make the Russians run out of missiles for their SAM systems. Also: the M142 HIMARS is just one of many launching vehicles that can fire the M31 rockets used in this attack. The Ukrainians also have a number of M270 MLRS launchers which can carry twice as many rockets as the HIMARS.
More than plausible, very likely I would think. The old way to defeat HARMS (or anti-radiation missiles) was to just shut down and don't leave them anything to track. There's a few problems there, mainly, modern HARMS remember where the target was and thus will prosecute to it's best solution. It;s just not that simple though and I don't want to be typing and boring you for the next three hours? Suffice to say that modern anti-missile/aircraft systems are layered with different systems specialising at different ranges and abilities. There is (or should be) multiple redundancy, co-ordinated control but also independent control should the former be lost, just hitting one radar will not bring down the system (or even that particular SAM site). We haven't even begun to explore electronic counter-measures from both sides? So let me put it like this, any attack on a well defended site requires multiple and varied ordnance all arriving at the same time and hopefully from different directions, just overwhelm the defence and land some strikes in the meantime (to the real target) with a potential follow-up strike 'waiting-in-the-wings' depending how much damage was done to the defence system, even if it's largely still intact, it's missiles might be depleted? It's just not so simple anymore, each step depends on the outcome of the last and it's all happening in real time where various ordnance flying at different speeds need to arrive at the same destinations not only within seconds of each other but in the right order within seconds, a tall order but it can and has been done. Mind, an intrepid SF unit with local backing and even the odd drone, could do severe damage to the defence before the air-strike to the main target? Timing is everything. Pax Steve.
@@andersjjensen Lots of Russian planes have been modified for NATO standard mount points in ex. Warsaw Pact countries that are now in NATO. There have been lots of "spare" parts for these planes shipped to Ukraine. So given Ukraine has fired AGM-88 missiles is almost certain that Ukraine now has Soviet era jets modified to be capable of firing NATO missiles.
Thanks. I'm going to start marketing a desktop monitor called "narrow view". Like the popular wide screens but showing a lot less of the subject matter. Just like phone shot videos shot in portrait instead of turning the phone side ways. The advantage is you see a lot more sky and ground and a lot less of the subject matter.
I think that’s the wrong way to go, I’m going to invent a phone that if you turn it sideways it records in landscape and fills the whole screen - a stretch I know, but it could work 😉
There was a large spread between incoming missiles on essentially two targets, the East end of the bridge and the West end, and w/o saturation RUS's combined MD capability intercepted, solidly, one by the looks of it, or there were intercepts without detonation in which case the missiles still found target kinetically or otherwise (is that an intercept? Most analysts say no). So for one of the most heavily defended assets around RUS MD gets a 1 out of 6 score. Russian MoD, let the excuses begin.
I know this sounds crazy but, I am shocked and surprised how poorly Russia is doing. And, while I mostly support Ukraine in this war I am saddened by all the deaths.
Not just the deaths. The Ukrainian infrastructure is going to need Marshall Plan levels of rebuilding after the war, and their economy will take years to recover. Meanwhile, thanks to a few unforced errors by Putin, the Russian economy won't recover for decades. Foreign investors are not going to trust Russia as a place to invest in until at least a decade after Putin leaves power.
Why, Russia won the war & is just now mostly in support role. Russia did far and wide better then US in the last 50 years. I think Russia did very well, no one did better then Russia since like WWII.
Ive been talking about The Chinese and Russian weapons on another channel, where they do mock battles with all new tech from all countries, and it seems there all hyped up, and do not do what they say they can do...but in this simulator, they seem impossible to break through. and the AI specs are fake.
Quite expensive. Probably 3x the cost of an a Himar rocket as it is a very large rocket meant for air interception. They are now using S-400 rockets for ground attack though because they’ve run out of most of their Kalibr cruise missiles already An update: I just looked it up and sources I found put the the guided rockets being fired by the Himars in Ukraine at a cost of about $100,000 ea. while S-300 rockets cost between $500,000- $4 mil depending on which type of rocket is fired from the system and what range it has. So far more costly
I searched for this info about a month ago and found out that a single S-400 missile costs (in Russia) about $150K with current RUB/USD ratio, but keep in mind that Ruble is very volatile, so the price may vary significantly. Also keep in mind that this is an estimation from public sources, there is no official info, how much Russia actually pays for these missiles.
@@losarpettystrakos7687 Sorry each S-400 missile costs $1 to 1.5 million. Each Pantsir missile costs $100K. Each HIMAR rocket costs $100K. So firing S-400 at HIMARS rocket makes little sense.
@@amitkp6957 It doesn’t make sense unless the thing that you’re trying to protect has more intrinsic value such as a bridge allowing resupply; if you’re trying to protect a field of wheat then I’d agree with you.
These air defense systems really seem to be operating blindly at times. Could that have something to do with the early capture of Pantsir and S400 systems that were shipped off for analysis 🤔🤷🏻♀️ With lithium batteries, the current state of miniaturization, and the carrying capacity of drones I really wonder if the Ukrainians have some sort of wild weasel drones available for limited use? Are the mighty Russo systems really that shoddy? Or is there something about the GMLRS that makes it more difficult for the Ork systems to deal with?
There is something about GMLRS that makes it more difficult to hit. This video did a pretty good job of explaining it: ua-cam.com/video/ceskPbDtTzY/v-deo.html IIRC, the US started using rocket artillery to destroy enemy SAMs as early as Desert Storm (a trick that they picked up from the Israelis)
@@jeffbenton6183 Thanks for sharing that. Ryan is an excellent communicator and clearly illustrates the complexities of defence against incoming tactical missiles.
Crew training is important. I think a competent crew could get good performance out of the S300 and S400. Unfortunately for Russia all they have is Russian military crews.
@@mtnbound2764 Pantsir uses a command line of sight guidance with the radar tracking both the target and missile and sending radio commands to the missile. Western nations started giving up on this type of system maybe 10 years ago. We still have missiles such as Crotal, Rapier and Roland in service and they would still work but our new missiles will use inertial guidance with mid course update and a terminal homing MMW active radar seeker. It is more accurate and the number of intercepts is almost unlimited. SkySabre would be the first but more are coming. The German IRIS-T SL uses imagine infrared with this technology and can hit other missiles. Apart from the greater accuracy, unlimited number of missiles launched it means that our radars can be turned of mommentarily, other sensors such as optical tracking can be fused. The thing that gets me is that Pantsir wouldn't surivve a USAF SEAD mission. Not only would that KAMAZ truck be destroyed with radar, guns and missiles the crew inside would be killed to a man or woman. A western system would separate radar, crew and launch system to avoid loosing personnel. We do have integrated missile/radar vehicles but they are in far more compact vehicles that are armored. I guess the Russians spent everything on hypersonics.
I thought so too, right up to the tomahawk strike on Syria in 2017. Hit right through the S--300's they might have been the S-400's I'm not exactly sure.
Russia is vert large. The two greatest armies in history tried snd failed. Lmao and Russia wasn't strong then. This time Russia would be in the defensive.
All so called sophisticated Russaian weapons including it's SAM systems are over hyped, not effective at all against the modern western system which is evident in the Ukraine war.
I don't know whether the Russian SAM's where thoroughly tested or were just tested in the testing phase then put on production it doesn't work that way, Western SAM's and MLRS rockets takes years to develop, upgraded and thoroughly tested rigourously to anticipate any untoward malfunction, that's why when you see video Russian forces firing their rocket system they are far from the launched vehicle because maybe just maybe it will explode or comes back after its fired, who knows, maybe they don't trust their manufacturers of those rockets...... corruption?....
Known issue with Russian SAM's and to be fair to Russian manufacturing on this one its more down to training, if you fire off a bunch of SAM's to close to each other there is a chance the rear one loses lock, but because of the warhead safety lock (Ironically) the warhead doesn't auto destruct, but the input to guidance and flight control go dead and it will sometimes loop up and over and back to the ground, think control guidance fins going inert and well floppy for the want of a better word. Its been a weird design issue for many decades and one they dont appear to have bothered to address as its a training issue.
There's an interesting and recent video showing the UkA using four HIMARS platforms to launch 24 GMLRS in 60 seconds here: ua-cam.com/video/cZxQTHt0Iig/v-deo.html Given the high value of the Antonovskiy bridge as a current target, it's quite possible the UkA did the same here since it appears missiles were incoming for at least one minute, however that doesn't really tally with only 5 explosions on the bridge if Russian SAMs are as bad as we want to believe.. The video evidence is just too flimsy. Perhaps we'll eventually see footage of the actual damage done that night, and maybe the UkA will tell us how many GLMRS they fired. Until then, it's all speculation and guesswork!
@@blackdubz Russians are STEALING dish washers, clothes washers and clothes dryers from the Ukraine to reutilize their micro chips which they cannot get today to use in their weapons!
Wow. No wonder President Erdogan of Turkey is looking so sour of late. He bought the exact same air defense systems that failed to protect Antonovsky bridge, not once but multiple times. He bought the Russian made systems because he thought our Patriot Missile Systems were too expensive. That's what you get when you buy something at Walmart that you should have bought a more expensive store.
Ukraine used other weapons to take out air defences on the that would lead them to have a corridor of free airspace that’s not contested and why they could punch further back in Russian occupied crimea . Ukraine took out so many anti air defence with HIMARS and grad . A few short range eliminations then they can fire deeper into Russian held ground . Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 🏴
Like with most of russian tech people fell for russian propaganda. That their crap air defence isn’t working as advertised should have been clear to everybody since when the Swedish declared that they are not afraid of those systems and don’t believe them to be a threat to their Air Force. They clearly did know something.
To defend against this type of attack, you need an air-defense similar to Israel's Iron Dome or US C-Ram, other systems can also intercept like Sky-Sabre, but idk how is it in combat, cuz US and Israel are constantly intercepting rockets. The Russians SAMs are pretty capable but not at the same level, at best can be at 50% accuracy. The crew operating these systems got to be skilled and ready to defend, probably Russia does not invest enough on training, they fail anyways, i think these Air-defenses are basically just trash compare to Western equipment. At the end, maybe some people laugh at these failures, but an important thing, always, never underestimated your enemy.
Three things this video doesn't take into account: The size of the missile - air defence systems designed to detect and protect against larger missiles, aircraft and drones. The very short time of flight - usually less than a minute to detect, identify and launch counter-measures, plus distance/time to intercept. Relative cost of missiles. Air defence missiles are very expensive.
Yes but the cost equation isn't just the cost of incoming projectile vs interceptor. The target of the incoming projectile has cost too and in this case is an airbase with hundreds of millions of dollars in planes and again in weapons/fuel for those planes. So it's probably worth it to let off a couple Millon dollar missiles to stop the 10-100k ones if they're capable.
@@MrDJAK777 The subject was the missiles getting through to the bridge in Kherson -Oops! Why use a half-million dollar missile to try to shoot down a $160k rocket , which will make a hole that can be repaired the next day? NO-ONE, not even Kiev has claimed the involvement of a missile at the Crimean airbase!
@@graemepeters5717 yeah thanks been flipping through so many similar videos thought it was a comment on a prior video. And fair enough but not claiming it could serve a tactical purpose that outweighs the pr/propaganda benefit atm.
@@graemepeters5717 they are having to guard the repair crews-not to protect them but to prevent them from running away. What do you think the quality of repairs looks like, when the repairs are made by people who want the Russians gone. "Oops, we got the cement mix wrong, the patch will fail if anything heavier than a motorcycle goes over it. Oh well" shrug.
Kinetic projectile bombardment or “orbital strikes if you are using nukes” increases the MLRS missiles speed from Mach 2 to 4-5 …. at a drop and no present Air defence can stop it ! Russia has similar old tech called Smersh but is only capable of unguided short range and not as powerful as HIMARS
Ballistic missiles can be intercepted. Conventional MLRS can be intercepted. So GMLRS can be intercepted. You just need the right system and a properly trained crew.
“Ballistic missiles can be intercepted”…. Can they though? On paper it does appear so, however there’s not a whole lot of real world scenarios where that’s played out. There’s only a handful of nations with those capabilities and nations with those capabilities tend to avoid conventional wars with each other. I’m highly skeptical of even the US’s capability to defend against a ballistic missile attack. Russia… we’ll if they US can’t pull it off, there’s no fucking way Russia could do better.
@@gregpaul882 Missile defense has come a long way, i'm sure that the systems like AEGIS and THAAD are more than capable to intercept a missile, the US & NATO has very powerful ANTI-Ballistic missile defense. here is a 9 years old video, so imagine now how crazy can it be. ua-cam.com/video/3LPdmxnBkIU/v-deo.html
I believe Ukraine possess HARM anti radiation missles too. Something to think about for anti air defense crews. 🤔 I believe they are most effective launched from a fighter. Scary shit.
The HIMARS minimum is not necessarily 6. Each rocket in a pod can be independently targeted and not all rockets need to be fired at the same time. They generally are fired in groups of 6, but when attacking multiple defended targets, they will split the pod to create as much complexity for air defense as possible. I would bet 5 of 6 hit. Only one bright flash in the sky.
if this was from himars it was done using long range ATACMS which a himars launcher can only hold and fire one of at a time but gains 190mi range and a larger payload for the sacrifice. The mlrs can likewise only hold/fire 2 of those.
@@MrDJAK777 the hits on the bridge were not likely to be ATACMS in my opinion. That is a larger and much more destructive warhead. 1-2 hits would sever the bridge span completely. The attack on Saki air base could definitely be ATACMS.
@@mandoreforger6999 I'm not so sure bridges are tough to take down particularly big ones even with the 300lb warhead you'd need several likely on the right spots and timed properly to do more than temporary damage. But it seems unlikely it was himars at all, I was just saying if it was, that's what they'd need to have been using due to the range.
I would bet the Ukraines didn’t fire more than 6. They don’t have unlimited numbers of them and I’m sure they knew Russia had increased the number of missile defense systems there. Firing 24 only to have the majority of them intercepted would be an incredible waste. Firing 6 and getting a hit or two would serve their purposes and save future capabilities. If they fire 6 and all of them are intercepted they’d know firing more would just be an even greater waste.
Firing 6 over the space of at least a minute (judging by the SAM launches) would make no sense since it gives the SAM site operators more time to react.
It is very easy to saturate any anti-air system in the world and it is very simple. You send dozens of rockets to a defended target, so that the system gets fed up with them, and the system itself is then unable to shoot down all those rockets. Simple and easy to implement, especially since Ukraine also has MRLS systems, with the same ranges, which they mostly use to conceal attacks with much more accurate HIMARS missiles. It's not a science, the Palestinians do something similar to Israel, where Iron Dome cannot shoot down all rockets, and those rockets are much slower than the ones sent to Russian targets by Ukraine. The system is not the problem, but its inability to defend itself against dozens of missiles at the same time.. That's the only real explanation for a problem that isn't a problem...there simply isn't a system in the world that can take down anything, no matter how advanced it is.
Yeah it's just really really hard to understand how,what with the high casualties,low morale,poor equipment,running out of artillery,tanks,planes,missiles and ammunition that some how some how Russia is still winning.🙄🙄🙄
Because all Russia has is more cannon fodder and more missiles. Russia does not care what it wastes or who it sends to slaughter, as long as it has more to send. It is brutal.
I think you hit the nail on the head, if the Himars attack at the same time as when a friendly aircraft is in the same area it makes it quite difficult to target in fear that the friendly aircraft might be accidentally hit instead but one thing this has all proven is that missile interceptors must be deployed with a hit ratio of 3 or 5 interceptors to one enemy warhead so it's not really a cost effective nor practically effective defensive system like the Israeli Iron Dome.
even the Iron dome shoots 3-4 missiles per incoming rocket. The difference is the agility of the Iron dome, their missiles have shown the ability to re-direct from one target to another if the first one is destroyed before it is reached
I think Russia lost any "superpower" status a few months ago
Yeah. Putin now titillating Wish Hitler 😅👌
90's
@@Hellbilly_C Putin = Muzzolini 😁
Well they still have a butt load of nukes…. But who knows how effective their delivery systems are.
More like a few decades ago
Russian arms sales must be at an all time low
Let me see if I get this correct. Ukraine targets kherson bridge. Russia defends it. Yet the Ukrainian missiles successfully denies continued use of the targeted bridge. I would say that was a 100% successful objective for Ukraine offense and a 100% failure for Russia defense objective for the bridge. 1 to 0 for Ukraine. Go Ukraine go.
It will be 1, when the bridge will be completly destroy !
It's just 20 for Russia and 5 for Ukraine...
at 900.000 $ for 6 Himars ...
Go Russia go it's all USA fault why are they putting missiles on Russian doorstep by expanding NATO Russians army didn't put missiles in Mexico ........
@@chrisgac4989 you're thinking like an accountant.
This is the military we're talking about.
@@chrisgac4989 each HIMAR rocket is $100k not $900k.... they are not trying to completely destroy the bridges, just prevent heavy equipment from crossing
If the warhead separates from the rocket body at apogee, then it's unlikely anything but a kinetic kill vehicle can stop it.
Seems logical; the tube has little mass once the propellant is exhausted, while the warhead can still steer itself on to its target. At the speed of the GMRLS, it must be extremely tough to hit. I can't see any reason the warhead should not have countermeasures, eg. jinking.
@@clivewarner2162 You and Jack just presented the case for the "Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb" (GLSDB) The basic idea is to take an MLRS rocket with an obsolete warhead and replace the warhead with the "Small Diameter Bomb" (SBD) guided glide bomb. This basically turns it into a GMLRS but with more range and maneuverability. (it's probably cheaper, too).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb#Ground_Launched_Small_Diameter_Bomb_(GLSDB)
@@clivewarner2162 US Pershing Missile Similar to ATACMS, had a hypersonic maneuvering warhead that would dip once it separated.
@@jeffbenton6183 I can not understand why the US and NATO have not purchased the GLSDB in massive quantities. Maybe they think the glide bomb is too slow, and vulnerable. It seems to me that the GLSDB with the Stormbreaker glide bomb would be a phenomenal weapon. Imagine being able to take out tanks from 60 miles away simply by getting eyes on them (drone or spotter) and calling in a standoff strike.
@@shooter7a The US generally doesn't have as much confidence in rocket artillery as it does in its air launched munitions so money usually goes to the Air Force. This also makes sense if we they have to fight on the other side of the world. Logistics will benefit those systems that can be rapidly deployed and transported. NATO usually didn't have the money or the experience of combat to buy any weapons system in mass in any real sense.
A different video showed five holes in the paved surface of the bridge - two on each end of the bridge and one a little closer to the center of the bridge. These were indicative of unitary warheads. The lower light flashes in the air are a sign of a proximity fuse causing the interceptor missile to explode - these were apparently “misses”. IOW, the interceptor missile wasn’t close enough to the incoming target missile to destroy it. The one bight flash was likely a hit by the interceptor missile, causing the destruction of one HIMARS or MLRS missile. That would account for the firing one pod of missiles (six). Five hits one the bridge and one missile intercepted midair and destroyed. 👈
I doubt they hit one
@@akbeal Hey…. even a blind pig finds an acorn, now and again. 🤣
I don't find this surprising at all Russia has a history of over-hyping it's capabilities always has done always will do but they never deliver on the hype when it comes down to military action.
the incoming guided missles are just going too fast for the AAM's to detect, fire, track and catch them quick enough.
Well, that's Russian technique, as is common with them. Big mouth and nothing behind it. ☝😁 ... 💛💙
The warhead only makes up a small part of the rocket. The other parts serve as support for the warhead and protection from proximity fuses. So the incoming apparatus can be intercepted by a proximity fuse AAM, but unless it detonates the protected warhead in the rocket and if close to the target it is unlikely to have the desired effect, due to momentum of the rocket travelling at ~3,000km/h. An AAM that is a 'hittile' may have more probability (due to kinetic energy when hitting) that the rocket warhead is detonated before the target is reached. Pantsir ammunition has both contact and proximity fuse but intercepting something with a speed of Mach 2.5 is tricky. It was designed to guard against low flying threats, not ballistic threats. S400 and S300 SAMS have a greater explosive yield with a proximity fuse, but during the closing stages the missile uses active homing which means it is looking for a radar signature. If the missile reaches a 'missed' state, the fragmentation field can be directed to the target or conform to symmetrical detonation.
Experience has shown that only hit to kill works. The US Patriot PAC-3 has a record of 238 or more hit to kill intercepts against incoming missiles in Saudi Arabia. The Russian S-400 still persists with proximity fused warheads.
Never let the enemy rest.. Make every shot count, show no mercy !!! The ruzzun orcs are a failed people, a human disgrace and may they rest in many pieces.. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦
Sams are designed primarily for fast jets and don’t work well if at all on Himmers coming in fast at that trajectory the only system out there is the American Patriot
Nope I think Iron Dome would make a *VERY* good fist at intercepting them too.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 British Sky Sabre would do it as well. IRIS-T SL (with infrared) as well.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 im not sure if you are aware but the iron dome was a complete failure.
@@sotilaskarkuri I am not aware because the Iron Dome system is not a complete failure. No other missile defence system has shot down as many missiles as Iron Dome. In fact the changing tactics of Hamas show that it effective, because if it was not effective they would not have changed their tactics.
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 anywhere i look that is even somewhat reputable source says that iron dome was massive failure
This narrator is a character. I like it!
(He is Swedish)
You didn't say it explicitly, but the problem is that the russian/soviet SAM's simply are not programmed to recognize HIMARS missiles.
.
This video does a really good job of demonstrating the problem. Basically, since the SAM does not recognize the HIMARS missile, the operator has between 5-30 seconds to manually recognize the threat and trigger a launch. Takes training. He also makes the point that russia can update programming, but it will take time to develop (and debug) the code and more time to distribute the update to the field.
.
2022 07 15- HIMARS on Russian Radar - how does it get through?
ua-cam.com/video/ceskPbDtTzY/v-deo.html
Our air defence is 99% sure to hit. Yeah right
The Antonovsky bridge is 1.3km long of this around 700m is over the water. Hence place a CIWS with HE rounds cluster type i.e. first burst into cluster/cloud and only then explode...........at every 100 meters or so. As soon as radar detects the incoming then Pantsirs are in action with their missiles but CIWS also go live firing HE spread out rounds over the bridge. The radar detects the rocket and calculates the time of hit to be say 20 seconds, the CIWS go into action after 15 seconds. Even if a HIMARS rocket gets through Pantsir missile, the flood of HE rounds either kill it or damage it enough to deflect it from the bridge.
What CIWS system are you talking about? Certainly not the US 4500 rounds per minute version...
Kremlin controlled news agency TASS confirmed earlier that contracts have been signed with defence manufacturer Almaz-Antey to supply the 100% effective S-500 missile systems. Enough washing machines and microwave cookers have been 'liberated' from Ukraine and are being stripped for parts to allow a production run. The assembly chimps are fully trained and totally motivated to ensure the missile systems get to the front quickly.
The contracts were signed off by Deputy Defense Minister Alexey Krivoruchko and Almaz-Antey Deputy CEO Vitaly Neskorodov, they gave assurances that every last ruble set aside for this contract will be spent correctly without any form of corruption, pinky promise.
of the 6 launched missiles, 2 reach the target, these are too expensive holes in the bridge and this shelling goes on for a week, and the bridge is standing
They want holes in the bridge but for it to still stand. So heavy vehicles cannot go to Kherson, but the soldiers in Kherson are tempted to flee across it.
Russia will Stand no chance with the USA 🇺🇸
Hymars rockets travel at Mach 3.
What is odd, is that American Phalanx system look to be the best choice, it is better at missiles taking a linear approach than it is at taking jets down. They dont have phalanx, but it would probably be the best backup after the SAMs fail.
You ever hear the story about the Japanese CWIS test?
They had a plane tow a target drone and told the phalanx to target the drone. After it had a kill on the drone it targeted the tow rope and followed it to the plane towing the target. The pilot was able to eject but a valuable lesson was learned that day.
Can modern missiles jink? Yes. Can Phalanx fire 4500 rounds a minute? Yes. Can a CWIS be programmed to draw a circle around an approaching missile so any direction it dodges it still gets hit? Yes.
@@aaronbaker2186 more reason not to mess with the US Navy
@@aaronbaker2186 Phalanx is not that effective in area defense. Hitting a target that changes direction (and is not moving straight at the gun) would be very difficult.
The Oerlikon Skyguard system would also work. 35mm rounds have their speed measured as they exit the barrel. They are then programed to burst slightly ahead of the target using a shaped charge to disperse tungsten cube pellets forward. This ammunition is called AHEAD. It's also guided with closed loop radar like Phalanx but has a big kill zone due to the AHEAD ammunition. I believe the only anti mortar and anti artillery system in service.
@@williamzk9083 that sounds great for larger targets.cruose missile and up I'm guessing
Couldn't defend the Moskva and also couldn't defend the Antonovsky bridge.
Good content. Please drop the godawful background noise!
Wonder what happened to old fashioned flak cannons lol.
The bridge intercepted all HIMARS
They will continue to have ubbb..... some issues.
Archangel Michael
When you fire 30 missiles some will pass through, welcome to the real world ?
only 6 :)
"Shoot And Miss"
Are you swedish?
damn primitive human technologies...
it's disappointing that we will not have deflector shield until the mid 23rd century...according to Star Trek!
Wellp,should have invested in the iron dome =0
Good assessment of the situation here. One would expect the Russians to adjust their positioning or increase the number of units protecting this bridge. I'm not sure if this is the same bridge I saw a few days ago, it had been attacked and the clip showed how the Russians had installed reflecting decoys to the side in the water. Pity they hadn't done that sooner, hope it works.
At this point continued defence of the Antonovskiy bridge is a total waste of time as it has been rendered unusable by anything but foot traffic without extensive repairs that will takes weeks if not months to accomplish. However as Napoleon said never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake 🙂
@@jonathanbuzzard1376 Ok thanks. Must of been a different bridge I saw because it didn't look as damaged as this clip shows. Napoleon? Do you mean that puffed pastry frog who destroyed his army by attacking Russia. Don't think I would be taking much notice of that madman.
@@martinhastingsis yeah, Napoleon attacked Russia the way Russia attacked Ukraine.
Edit it was probably the same bridge. What looks cosmetic to us laymen can be fatal damage. Need an engineer to tell. The holes in the surface are not the concern (or may not be) it is what happens to the support structure below.
A quick patch job on the holes, drive a tank onto the bridge, and the whole thing goes in the water...
@@aaronbaker2186 Having built a couple or 3 bridges in my time; I am well aware of the possible structural damage created in the attack and Russian Engineers will be too. However it will only be a blib in any delay to Russias glorious defeat of your NAZI friends. Byebye Aaron haVe a ZZZZ of a day.
Israeli iron Dome would be more suitable to protect that bridge then s400 or pantsir.
1/6 is one more than the patriot system would manage lol
But the SAMs worked so well on airliners!
oh yeah, beautiful Fireworks!
lol
Ohhh yikes. Too soon?
Russia has allready lost the war well done Ukrain our love from Australia 🇦🇺
Airliners have no flares or chaff and are not flying evasively. The kind of helpless target the RuZZians prefer. 🖕👉🇷🇺
Russian General to Putin "All HIMARS intercepted sir"...Putin, "so the remains bridge is intact?"....General "What bridge?"
😅
@@zeugsman The bridge successfully intercepted all HIMARS.
They probably feed Putin bs like the bridge collapsed on its own because of ukranian engineering
😂😂😂😂😂😂
That is to funny 🥳🥳🤣
The Russian SAM system is a special operation system, Seek And Miss 😂
😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
LOL
Yep
Even Israel iron dome system misses as well, can't stop all hamas rockets! So no air defence system is 100% perfect
russia hit 56 out of 16 rockets shot on antonovsky bridge!
Actually Russia hit all of the rockets, the explosions are an illusion
@@BobuxGuy it's a special ilusion portrait.
It was a cigarette dropped on the bridge
One hundred and elventeen units engaged the HIMARS rockets 150% accuracy.
Russia lied when American and Britain unleashed hellfires even using there best SAM
Not all explosions in the sky are an intercept. It's the SAM itself self destructing if it cannot find a target
All SAMs do this.
It looked like one probable intercept to 5 hits on the bridge with 20 + interceptors fired. I wonder how long till they run out of SAMs?
@@panemetcircenses510 Probably not before Ukraine runs out of SAMs. Just saying. This is a war of attrition. And Ukraine is expected to run out of supplies by the end of the year and that means game over for Ukraine.
@@Flying_Lexus run out of supplies? Are you serious with that comment? Do you think USA, UK and all of Europe have less supplies than Russia? Because that’s what your saying.
@@adz4u28 yes, I'm serious. USA, UK, and all of Europe are not sending enough for Ukraine to win, they're sending just enough for the war to go on for a bit longer. Majority of the aid is not focused on the military but rather on humanitarian aid and also they give money to Ukraine so that they can buy junk from US that the US do not want to keep maintaining. If you think Ukraine is going to be winning this war, you need a reality check. As I said, this is a war of attrition, and when it comes to attrition, Russia has the upper hand. Russia can still produce food and military goods, Ukraine lost majority of it's territory that used to produce food for the world export, their economy went down the drain. They went from one of the largest food suppliers in the world to a state that will most likely rely on foreign aid just to feed their population. So again, if you think that they're winning this war, you need a reality check.
@Betty Swallocks You're not committed. It's empty words. Also "We in NATO", as if I'm not part of NATO. I know wtf I'm talking about.
Having worked around surface to air intercept systems I've got to say this is a very good breakdown of the attack. Thanks for the effort and thought you put into this! I'll be subscribing now.
No SAM system can stop kinetic bombardment, these rockets probably reach very high altitude before dropping at the intended target … thus increasing orbital speed to several Machs higher than the original …
@@martincardoso2494 ...Yes but the Russians have been claiming they stop everything the west has. They hype it up so much you'd think their s400s can shoot down Klingon warbirds orbiting Uranus .
Thanks for your input. The presentation was more technical than me but I liked what I heard. I think I'll stick around. 81522
@@martincardoso2494 These are not ballistic missiles. But, they are relatively small and fast.
@@KjetilBalstad himars is a ballistic system .
This is one of the great example how effective western weapon is and how UA forces professionally apply it. The more ammo to Ukraine the sooner this war will end.
🤣🤣🤣🤣. the west will collapse before that happens
and you seriously think ukrainians will believe wokesters and their racist lies, and not turn their weapons on the west one day because woke jew is in charge in ukraine
@@divineantiwokegangster not fresh anymore, keep your russian propaganda for russian fools. Ukraine on other hand continues to liberate its mother land, thanks to western arms and support.
RT: we intercepted all the Himars rockets. The bridge was destroyed by a special smoking operation 🤣
Russians haven’t figured out how to build antilock brakes on their cars……you think their tech is actually good 😂😅😂
kamaz quite not
@@mansurtxafapapaias3517 We live in 2022 not 1972. :)
Russia: "We're the baddest dudes on the block!"
Ukraine: "Here's a quarter son, go water my horse."
ukraine military no 1… it's been proven 💪💪💙💛🔱
But that hourse belong to donbass republic people (DRP)now ;)
@Betty Swallocks no it's not Israel
@Betty Swallocks what about tiwan you mistery nood
@Betty Swallocks what and where??? may be you should see the history of Israel....how it was formed
Ahh leave it dat don't matter.
What matter now is,donbass is in control of Russia just like Crimea 🙂
The end
I’d be curious to know how Russian arms sales are doing now that the world can see how poorly they perform.
Big discounts now - all items must go !
Russian Arms has always been the Harbor Freight of weapons.
They are doing fine, russian costumers dont really care for having a competent army, as long as they can kill civilians and opress the population its all good 👍🏻
I did see something saying that a lot of orders had been scaled back to bare minimum or totally cancelled since countries have seen how " good " Russian equipment is
gives new meaning to "fire sale".
I heard the Russians were even using Sling Shots trying to hit the Himar rockets ?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣….nothing would surprise me from these goons!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
😃😃😃😃😃😃😂
🤣
@@GermanRLopez
Orcs
That is insane how negative an amount of HIMARS (according to the Russian ministry of defense that appears to be not capable of counting to 10) can do to all the "superpower" Russian AA defense.
Imagine if they had 100 :3
Well it is exactly what they were made to do and the exact/modern versions of the systems they were meant to counter/give an advantage against.
@@Deutschland8894 counting allied compatible systems they have quite a few. Really the number of missiles is the constraint, not the number of launchers-at least in the medium time frame. If the Russians were able to destroy any that would be different of course.
I c that u American guys are really eating that shit
Russian claims on Himars are a standing joke, I've yet to see one destroyed, I'm well aware they aren't invincible , some are gonna be hit, up to now they're hiding them well, thing is, you don't need that many to make a difference if they all hit target🏴🇺🇦
U.S. and NATO.. the world salutes you! Keep up the good work. Comrades Ukranians no mercy with Criminal Putin and minions. 🇺🇲🇺🇦🇺🇲🇺🇦🇺🇲🇺🇦😎😎
NATO? They're doing jack shit.
Ah yes, because US have zero criminal records killing civilians, children, baby, bombing, napalm, chemical agents on village, Vietnam, cambodia, Irak, etc, etc.
Putin is using your methods you must applaud?
@@Sturmbannfuhrer_OttoGunsche Easy on the NATO comrades...they will when the time comes. 😎
@@acidkhmer Yes, lots of killing in the old ages. Thid is the present and Putin and Minions will GO DOWN TO THE CHINATOWN! 🇺🇲🇺🇦🇺🇲🇺🇦🇺🇲🇺🇦
@@dreg4781 Understandably when time comes, but as of now they're not doing much besides humanitarian aid.
An attack out of the blue is likely to go through... 🎶🎵
Having seen the other (potato quality) video from the attack earlier that same night I'm giving the Russians a 1:20 hit probability at best. In the first attack all 6 GMLARS rockets went through and at least 12 SAMs were fired. And in this one 5 clearly went through with one likely intercept. So at worst they're looking at 1:32 which is obviously unsustainable even if they have 50 S-400 systems in the vicinity.
An s400 system costs 300 million they don't have 50 around anything let alone one base. Russia has like 50* s400 systems total. And a single s500 system sans missiles around Moscow iirc.
S-400 and S-300 are not even used vs artillery rockets. The BUK M3 System, with the 9M317M missile would be used. but even that system has problems, because the response time / human factors make it so difficult.
The only S-400 system near Ukraine is in Belarus. The SAM system most likely used is Pantsir.
@@wadopotato33 Then why have we seen pictures of destroyed S-300 and S-400 systems from within Ukraine? And why would they only have their medium range Pantsir systems with a maximum range of 40km (And that's only for the recently upgraded versions. Most inventory still only has a range of 20km) when S-400 starts at 40km for the smallest rockets and extends all they way up to 400km.
@@andersjjensen S-300 maybe, S-400 you have not. They don't have any in Ukraine. They shot down a plane in Ukraine, but did it from Belarus.
Here: "Russia’s S-400 long range air defence system has reportedly seen its first combat and gained its first kill during the country’s military intervention in Ukraine, engaging and neutralising a Ukrainian Air Force Su-27 fighter near the country’s capital Kiev according to a number of reports. The shootdown reportedly took place on February 25, a day after Russian military operations in Ukraine began, when the Ukrainian Air Force had yet to suffer more serious losses. The S-400 was reportedly not deployed to Ukrainian soil, but engaged and neutralised its target from the territory of neighbouring Belarus where Russian forces retain a large presence.
There is no S-400 system in Ukraine. They have two that can reach into Ukraine, but do so from outside the Ukraine. Russia only has five S-400 units.
Here: As of September 2013 the Russian Armed Forces had five S-400 regiments: two in Moscow, one in the Pacific fleet, one in the Baltic Fleet, and one in the Southern Military District.
GMLRS rockets can be fired from at least FIVE different launchers, not just HIMARS
But they only have M142 (HIMARS) and M270 (MLRS) in the country as of yet, so that narrows it down. But I've just come to accept that people think it's the rockets them selves (M31 in all probability) which are called "HIMARS rockets".
NATO standardization is beautiful
@@andersjjensen are you sure? I thought they got compatible launcher systems from other NATO states.
@@aaronbaker2186 they have some German Mars II's, which are just a German made licensed version of the M270.
@@shooter7a indeed, and although the US has stated none of their supplied systems have been destroyed, i'm yet to see the uk and german governments state the same (though i may have missed them do it)
And there's another issue about those 19 missiles fired. That was probably a couple of months' worth of production. And the cost of the interceptor is several times the cost of a GMRLS missile.
Russia is racing the clock here. They need to win before they run out of SAMs and other high-tech weapons.
It would be great to hear how close Russia is to running out of SAMS and other high-tech weapons.
Russia doesn't need to win, it needs to be demilitarized for good.
Russian "high tech" is clearly a much lower quality standard compared to NATO
True, but now Putin is asking Kim for help!
@@peters6591 Here's an hour-long video that discusses consumption of ballistic and cruise missiles. It's an hour well spent because there's a lot to the subject.
ua-cam.com/video/_F7mt4rNVY0/v-deo.html
Russia defeats rocket attack through a brilliant strategic use of the bridge to intercept all misses not stopped by other means.
The flashes aren't necessarily intercepted missiles because the SAM warheads will auto-detonate after the interceptor runs out of fuel.
Yup, I suspect those were self-destruct due to loss of target lock, if there was ever a lock in the first place.
Here's a video about the overly complex S-400 system (which is the development of the S-300 that these probably were) which makes a lot of sense. The Russian boasts about system efficacy aren't lies, per se, but there's a reliance upon a complex interrelated system which I doubt is actually operational.
ua-cam.com/video/McJAYZfhapo/v-deo.html
I don't thing the Russian management realize what they will be messing with if the USA comes knocking on Russia's door, they are very very secretive about new military advancement, and only a fool or a total bluffer would announce there most advance weaponry to the world.
@@matsuz100 The US, for reasons related to both democracy and deterrence, is relatively open about the existence and basic characteristics of most (but not all) weapons systems. And we do have a number of profound material advantages over the Russian forces, and more importantly a gigantic advantage in training and force professionalism. But this shouldn’t be surprising. Russia is a mid sized country with an aging population, endemic poverty, and pervasive corruption. Hardly a recipe for an effective military.
They can be. A similar situation was seen with the Patriot system when intercepting SCUD in 1991. The warheads were detonating, but as it wasn't designed to intercept high speed missiles, the fusing wasn't quick enough to detonate the proximity warhead before the missile had passed. Essentially Patriot was on target but the fuse and warhead were not optimised to deal with the target it was being asked to engage. The US addressed this rapidly with some updates, but also changed the missiles and system in later upgrades.
On paper the Russians have a great army and superb weapons. In reality their equipment is shit and they couldn't find their ass with an endoscope.
Yet they are doing far better then US... now image what US army is...
@@tomk3732 Uh...you might wanna check casualty rates..in 6 months Russia has 75,000 casualties, which is more casualties than the US suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over the course of 20 years.
Yee, Vorchuta gulag, the second worst place in the world, waste of human lives, all the dead soldiers, knowing anything or nothing place of Sovjezki Sajuda? Are you pootin friend? 1.1-1.6 million dead ”raska”. Didn’t ya knew?
@@SelfProclaimedEmperor Yes, I looked at casualties, US suffered around 60k dead in Vietnam. Russia so far (Russia proper) suffered at most 8k dead.
Vietnam war was a colonial war, this is at peer war.
Russia is doing very well.
US fought an at peer war with Japan and Nazi Germany - lost 460k troops (!)
@@tomk3732 US dead in combat from 10 years of war in Vietnam was 49k dead. Ukraine has already confirmed 41k dead Russian soldiers from dog tags, not counting any mercenary dead, for anyone who doubts, Ukraine is putting all the Russian tags in a warehouse, and it's expected to fill it up completely
Perhaps Putin will send Steven Segal to defend the bridge.
Fridge* Fixed that for you!
@@Sauerbrew777 ok. I tried not to laugh. I failed miserably.
Well they only have practiced on Boeing 777s and their own su-35s
Against a missile, intercept time is crucial, a hit may destroy several systems on an incoming missile, but if those systems have already served their purpose, and the damage doesn't divert its flight path, and it's payload is not detonated short of the target, it's still an incoming projectile with its explosive or kinetic yield. Against a pilot, you might make him abort his mission if he takes damage. But a missile is naturally on a kamikaze mission as soon as it is launched. If you do not intercept a missile before it is on final descent to target, it's already too late, you might be able to detonate it with continued fire before it reaches the target, and that might reduce the damage the target takes, but what you are dealing with is a mass equation. If you shoot an elephant that's charging at you, the shot may prove lethal to the elephant, but do you really expect that to matter much if the elephant still falls on you? That's what it's like dealing with high-yield explosive and kinetic weapons.
The Russians are going to start launching elephants! 😂
Sorry Pal, you kinetic energy argument holds true only for one on one hit, but when cluster HE rounds are exploding then incoming rocket, artillery, mortars are mashed potatos in the air itself. The US C-RAM has proven it by stopping more than 90% of incoming rockets and artillery.
@@kensmith8152 don't give them any ideas. 😆
Great explanation thanks
Excellent point.
Russia air defenses just scraps
Who would buy any Russian air defence equipment now 😂
Rockets are aged to defend against. Everyone knows that
what goes up must come down, lots of little Russians, running round and round.
That would be stupid not to be prepared, there 100% prepared. They just can't lock on to the U.S.A made himars, and what's coming is even more devastating, they'll need to back up, way back.
+++
What this guy is failing to mention is the history of russian air defense systems which, in Vietnam were very good. But 50 years later they are still using 1950's technology and expecting 1960's success. All russian radars are the same, using antiquated technology and expecting success. Yeah, it works in testing against their own missiles, but not when seconds count. If you look at how a radar for russia and one for the US look and the differences you see the problem. The ruskies still use 1950's slow oscilloscope type screens with their radar, they also use a flat horizontal screen (or placed vertically depending on the system) that use analog data. Very slow scan, very slow targeting. While the US uses high power computing systems. Take the Iran incident, Iran fired 13 missiles at US ships and all were defeated. The US hit and sank 8 Iranian ships that day. Iran didn't defeat a single missile, their radar was russian designed. The moscva sank because of the same issue. They use the same land systems on their ships which explains why they can't defeat anti ship missiles either. Even the newest russian air defense systems use 1950's oscilloscope screens for their radar. The fact they can't seem to understand their issue is the funniest thing yet. But like logistics, it's just over the heads of the russians.
That shsould explain why the most powerful air defenses of NATO could not intercept iranian missiles provided to Houthis ,to strike Saudi fields , even Saudi arabia had PATRIOTS defenses manned by US soldiers and were hit again and again and again their oil fields.. So is funny when people ignore the failure of US air defenses recently , and lets no say how IRAN bombed US forces in IRAQ too .. But the excuse "we don't have air defenses there" is laughlable , no nation in the world send their army into a hostile country without proper air defenses. Moral of the story , US air defenses digital panels did not helped US forces in any way to protect Saudi Arabia and not even their own Soldiers in IRAQ.. those amazing stealth drones NATO have ,neither survived in real pratice ,when facing IRANIAN outdated tech . that destroyed them so easily.. even captured a stealth drone and reverse engineer it. That was embarrasing indeed. At least the Russian "outdated weapons" defended their air base in Syria , not like NATO ,that it seems that whenever they fight seminaked soldierss with rocket grenades strike their base ,their technology brakes .and stop working , In Afhganistan ,a US based with hundreds of soldiers was strike too , by taliban missiles with many wounded soldiers.. lets not forget about that. either ,but the best one was how IRAN evacuated 3 bases in IRAQ ,that US forces were deployed by striking it with ballistic missiles.. if that was not embarrassing ,then no idea what is. The fact that US don't deploy bases in Ukraine ,(when they could do it) is because of fear of Russia hitting them . Russia hit the US base in Syria several times , targeting a zone of their backed Rebels they training them.. and nothing reported of that. Reality is ,you can't shield 100% of the time any place with air defenses . any system with digital shinny color displays or soviet era ones can be saturated with missiles.. So your intel and amd technology will not change that.. no matter how beautiful are the displays of your crappy PATRIOTS defenses ,that failed in Saudi arabia ,and failed in afghanistan too versuss ballistic missiles. and failed in Israel ,when SCUDS from IRAQ hit them dozens of times . The fact that Turkey ,Egypt ,Saudi Arabia ,who have patriots defenses , prefer Russian S-400s ,should tell you something about reality of which air defenses are better.. when even NATO countries prefer them to the NATO ones. INDIA too was offered NATO air defenses ,and was offered iron dome too ,but which system they choose? Russian S-400s.. So lets facts get in , before discussing how good or bad are Russian defenses.
@@technoartfest8708 lol, and now you are believing the BS spewed by those who want you to believe those systems don't work. Fact is they have shot down 95% of all missiles in range of the systems. The issue is there is and was a very limited number of systems there. Part of that is due to the fact that training crews to use them can take a year. Then add to it if the system is not on it obviously won't shoot anything down. 🙄 The Saudis have a very limited number of systems and trained crews. Also, newer systems are not available to the Saudis. The versions they are using are upgraded patriot systems that we left there from the first gulf War. The systems being used by our troops in Iraq now are two or 3 generations newer. The patriot is not perfect, and very different from the shipboard systems. The C-RAM system is the most capable land system as it can take out missiles, rpg's and even artillery rounds and can be autonomous and operate without human intervention although that is rarely done due to obvious reasons. There is also a huge difference between an SM-2 missile and a patriot missile. The SM-2 and SM-6 have been around for decades and have been successful every time they have been used. The only time they didn't work it was due to fact the system was not even turned on. The shipboard systems are always on now in certain areas of the world after the USS Stark attack where the system was off and it was supposed to have been on.
@@johnstark4723 The technology they are using is radio command to the missile with a radar tracking both the missile and target. It's the same as the Rapier Missile used decades ago. It's a system western miltraries have given up on. It's just not accurate enough.
@@johnstark4723 Note, the main air defence system of the moskva was in fact stowed, not deployed. Which is ironic considering your mentioning of USS Stark.
They also do not use "50s oscilloscope screens", not sure where you heard this one. The systems are fine. The operators aren't.
Oh and if you meant operation praying mantis, which is like the only one instance i can think of of USN sinking Iranian ships in any numbers, those were 6 vessels. Largest of which were a pair of _british made_ frigates. Then there was a french-made Tiger class.
It way often happens that people go well out of their depth trying to prop up their favourites...
@@19Koty96 that wasn't the main air defense fool. That's just one of several air defenses and none were capable.
can you imagine the overtime military intelligence and analysts must be pulling right now. this is decades worth of testing in a couple of months.
Russia.....Where air defence?.... What air defence doing? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 #NAFO expansion is non negotiable. #NAFO FELLAS
As far as the attack on the airport, I think Russian was sleeping on the job. In the video I saw, there were at least three missile strikes and most likely four. There was no visual I saw of the initial incoming strikes. After that there were a number of explosions that might have been related to explosives on the property. I don't think it was HIMARS that struck the airfield. That leaves a couple of other options that includes partisan support along with shorter range missiles near the site. If they can do it there, they may be able to do it to the bridge as well. Maybe one big target a week inside of the Crimea. Make it a no tourist zone. So far, Russia is still making headway on the perimeter. That has to stop before anyone can expect relief in the war.
I saw a theory that it was ATACMS that his the airbase since several versions of the missiles actually release cluster munitions. This would explain why some planes were destroyed and others seemed to be either okay or slightly damaged
@@chaosXP3RT Yeah that is my take too. All the other theories seem highly improbable and don't fit the satellite imagery.
There are no partisans in Crimea. The people of Crimea wanted to be a part of Russia 100%. This had to be sabotage.
@@chaosXP3RT - I have heard the same thing but that is still an American made long range weapon. I've also heard that it was a Ukrainian made weapon developed just for that purpose. Still, I have not seen any kind of visual showing an incoming missile. Someone will validate it sooner than later and we may well see it in action again soon. The sooner the better.
@@mz7688 - Maybe you should take a look at this report that just came out - ua-cam.com/video/cw0TIJqt--k/v-deo.html
You only have so much of a reaction window in which to act, and that's assuming you haven't had too much vodka and you actually turned the system on in the first place!! 😉 Keep sending em Ukraine! 🇺🇦🇺🇲
I wonder if it's conceivable to launch an anti-radar missile at the same time that the HIMARS rounds are coming in: The Russians *have to* engage the rounds, which makes them ripe targets for the HARM to take out the SAM site. Is this plausible?
Yes it is actually a standard tactic not sure if Ukraine has enough Harm to do this everytime though
AGM-88 HARMs are air-to-surface missiles and it is still a bit of a mystery how the heck the Ukrainians are firing them, as they're only compatible with NATO plane mount-points and control computers. But since they've acknowledged that they have them, and have used them, then yes, a coordinated attack would be possible.
But currently it looks like Ukraine is keeping them in reserve and just make the Russians run out of missiles for their SAM systems.
Also: the M142 HIMARS is just one of many launching vehicles that can fire the M31 rockets used in this attack. The Ukrainians also have a number of M270 MLRS launchers which can carry twice as many rockets as the HIMARS.
More than plausible, very likely I would think. The old way to defeat HARMS (or anti-radiation missiles) was to just shut down and don't leave them anything to track. There's a few problems there, mainly, modern HARMS remember where the target was and thus will prosecute to it's best solution.
It;s just not that simple though and I don't want to be typing and boring you for the next three hours?
Suffice to say that modern anti-missile/aircraft systems are layered with different systems specialising at different ranges and abilities. There is (or should be) multiple redundancy, co-ordinated control but also independent control should the former be lost, just hitting one radar will not bring down the system (or even that particular SAM site). We haven't even begun to explore electronic counter-measures from both sides?
So let me put it like this, any attack on a well defended site requires multiple and varied ordnance all arriving at the same time and hopefully from different directions, just overwhelm the defence and land some strikes in the meantime (to the real target) with a potential follow-up strike 'waiting-in-the-wings' depending how much damage was done to the defence system, even if it's largely still intact, it's missiles might be depleted?
It's just not so simple anymore, each step depends on the outcome of the last and it's all happening in real time where various ordnance flying at different speeds need to arrive at the same destinations not only within seconds of each other but in the right order within seconds, a tall order but it can and has been done.
Mind, an intrepid SF unit with local backing and even the odd drone, could do severe damage to the defence before the air-strike to the main target?
Timing is everything.
Pax Steve.
@@andersjjensen Lots of Russian planes have been modified for NATO standard mount points in ex. Warsaw Pact countries that are now in NATO. There have been lots of "spare" parts for these planes shipped to Ukraine. So given Ukraine has fired AGM-88 missiles is almost certain that Ukraine now has Soviet era jets modified to be capable of firing NATO missiles.
Like a trazor bullet
Thanks. I'm going to start marketing a desktop monitor called "narrow view". Like the popular wide screens but showing a lot less of the subject matter. Just like phone shot videos shot in portrait instead of turning the phone side ways. The advantage is you see a lot more sky and ground and a lot less of the subject matter.
Agreed my thoughts completely ! and less need to keep moving the camera side to side making it difficult to follow the subject matter !
I think that’s the wrong way to go, I’m going to invent a phone that if you turn it sideways it records in landscape and fills the whole screen - a stretch I know, but it could work 😉
There was a large spread between incoming missiles on essentially two targets, the East end of the bridge and the West end, and w/o saturation RUS's combined MD capability intercepted, solidly, one by the looks of it, or there were intercepts without detonation in which case the missiles still found target kinetically or otherwise (is that an intercept? Most analysts say no). So for one of the most heavily defended assets around RUS MD gets a 1 out of 6 score. Russian MoD, let the excuses begin.
Слава Героям Україні 💙💙💛💛
Slava cocaini, heroinam slava
@@sepxviii731 :)) Better "Cocaini" than "krokodili"
US sending message to Russia... Sam no more.. Time to upgrade...
We're sorry, the budget is low, and the upgrading cost is not negotiable
@@tommyn79 us offers discount.. china buy 1 take 1..😂
I know this sounds crazy but, I am shocked and surprised how poorly Russia is doing. And, while I mostly support Ukraine in this war I am saddened by all the deaths.
Not just the deaths.
The Ukrainian infrastructure is going to need Marshall Plan levels of rebuilding after the war, and their economy will take years to recover.
Meanwhile, thanks to a few unforced errors by Putin, the Russian economy won't recover for decades. Foreign investors are not going to trust Russia as a place to invest in until at least a decade after Putin leaves power.
Why, Russia won the war & is just now mostly in support role.
Russia did far and wide better then US in the last 50 years.
I think Russia did very well, no one did better then Russia since like WWII.
I am shocked that you believe in everything the western media says..
@@ludimilojko546 We are in the middle or a mis- and dis-information war. I trust no media outlet. I watch and filter.
@@tomk3732 Russia won the war did they? Keep saying that as Ukraine moves closer to Crimea
Ive been talking about The Chinese and Russian weapons on another channel, where they do mock battles with all new tech from all countries, and it seems there all hyped up, and do not do what they say they can do...but in this simulator, they seem impossible to break through. and the AI specs are fake.
What is the cost of a single S-400 missile firing? I know that Tochka-U costs $US 300,000 per firing, does S-400 cost more?
Cost doesn't matter if your equipment is now held in low regard
Quite expensive. Probably 3x the cost of an a Himar rocket as it is a very large rocket meant for air interception. They are now using S-400 rockets for ground attack though because they’ve run out of most of their Kalibr cruise missiles already
An update: I just looked it up and sources I found put the the guided rockets being fired by the Himars in Ukraine at a cost of about $100,000 ea. while S-300 rockets cost between $500,000- $4 mil depending on which type of rocket is fired from the system and what range it has. So far more costly
I searched for this info about a month ago and found out that a single S-400 missile costs (in Russia) about $150K with current RUB/USD ratio, but keep in mind that Ruble is very volatile, so the price may vary significantly. Also keep in mind that this is an estimation from public sources, there is no official info, how much Russia actually pays for these missiles.
@@losarpettystrakos7687 Sorry each S-400 missile costs $1 to 1.5 million. Each Pantsir missile costs $100K. Each HIMAR rocket costs $100K. So firing S-400 at HIMARS rocket makes little sense.
@@amitkp6957 It doesn’t make sense unless the thing that you’re trying to protect has more intrinsic value such as a bridge allowing resupply; if you’re trying to protect a field of wheat then I’d agree with you.
So, put simply, they got caught with their pantsir down.
These air defense systems really seem to be operating blindly at times. Could that have something to do with the early capture of Pantsir and S400 systems that were shipped off for analysis 🤔🤷🏻♀️ With lithium batteries, the current state of miniaturization, and the carrying capacity of drones I really wonder if the Ukrainians have some sort of wild weasel drones available for limited use? Are the mighty Russo systems really that shoddy? Or is there something about the GMLRS that makes it more difficult for the Ork systems to deal with?
There is something about GMLRS that makes it more difficult to hit. This video did a pretty good job of explaining it:
ua-cam.com/video/ceskPbDtTzY/v-deo.html
IIRC, the US started using rocket artillery to destroy enemy SAMs as early as Desert Storm (a trick that they picked up from the Israelis)
@@jeffbenton6183 Thanks for sharing that. Ryan is an excellent communicator and clearly illustrates the complexities of defence against incoming tactical missiles.
Crew training is important. I think a competent crew could get good performance out of the S300 and S400.
Unfortunately for Russia all they have is Russian military crews.
the incoming rockets are just coming too fast for the AAM systems to detect track fire and stop them is what i see in the videos.
@@mtnbound2764 Pantsir uses a command line of sight guidance with the radar tracking both the target and missile and sending radio commands to the missile. Western nations started giving up on this type of system maybe 10 years ago. We still have missiles such as Crotal, Rapier and Roland in service and they would still work but our new missiles will use inertial guidance with mid course update and a terminal homing MMW active radar seeker. It is more accurate and the number of intercepts is almost unlimited. SkySabre would be the first but more are coming. The German IRIS-T SL uses imagine infrared with this technology and can hit other missiles. Apart from the greater accuracy, unlimited number of missiles launched it means that our radars can be turned of mommentarily, other sensors such as optical tracking can be fused.
The thing that gets me is that Pantsir wouldn't surivve a USAF SEAD mission. Not only would that KAMAZ truck be destroyed with radar, guns and missiles the crew inside would be killed to a man or woman. A western system would separate radar, crew and launch system to avoid loosing personnel. We do have integrated missile/radar vehicles but they are in far more compact vehicles that are armored.
I guess the Russians spent everything on hypersonics.
I thought so too, right up to the tomahawk strike on Syria in 2017. Hit right through the S--300's they might have been the S-400's I'm not exactly sure.
if usa and russia go to war without nuclear it will be like brazil germany at the world cup very unbalanced
Russia is vert large. The two greatest armies in history tried snd failed. Lmao and Russia wasn't strong then. This time Russia would be in the defensive.
All so called sophisticated Russaian weapons including it's SAM systems are over hyped, not effective at all against the modern western system which is evident in the Ukraine war.
I don't know whether the Russian SAM's where thoroughly tested or were just tested in the testing phase then put on production it doesn't work that way, Western SAM's and MLRS rockets takes years to develop, upgraded and thoroughly tested rigourously to anticipate any untoward malfunction, that's why when you see video Russian forces firing their rocket system they are far from the launched vehicle because maybe just maybe it will explode or comes back after its fired, who knows, maybe they don't trust their manufacturers of those rockets...... corruption?....
Western weapons are better tested.. because west is always in war..
Known issue with Russian SAM's and to be fair to Russian manufacturing on this one its more down to training, if you fire off a bunch of SAM's to close to each other there is a chance the rear one loses lock, but because of the warhead safety lock (Ironically) the warhead doesn't auto destruct, but the input to guidance and flight control go dead and it will sometimes loop up and over and back to the ground, think control guidance fins going inert and well floppy for the want of a better word.
Its been a weird design issue for many decades and one they dont appear to have bothered to address as its a training issue.
There's an interesting and recent video showing the UkA using four HIMARS platforms to launch 24 GMLRS in 60 seconds here:
ua-cam.com/video/cZxQTHt0Iig/v-deo.html
Given the high value of the Antonovskiy bridge as a current target, it's quite possible the UkA did the same here since it appears missiles were incoming for at least one minute, however that doesn't really tally with only 5 explosions on the bridge if Russian SAMs are as bad as we want to believe..
The video evidence is just too flimsy. Perhaps we'll eventually see footage of the actual damage done that night, and maybe the UkA will tell us how many GLMRS they fired. Until then, it's all speculation and guesswork!
Cope!!
So much for those appliance microchips😂🇺🇸🇺🇦🌎
Explain please.
@@blackdubz Sanctions on Russia causing microchip shortage to build and maintain weans. Russia stealing them out of appliances as a source.
@@blackdubz Russians are STEALING dish washers, clothes washers and clothes dryers from the Ukraine to reutilize their micro chips which they cannot get today to use in their weapons!
Wow. No wonder President Erdogan of Turkey is looking so sour of late. He bought the exact same air defense systems that failed to protect Antonovsky bridge, not once but multiple times. He bought the Russian made systems because he thought our Patriot Missile Systems were too expensive. That's what you get when you buy something at Walmart that you should have bought a more expensive store.
Ukraine used other weapons to take out air defences on the that would lead them to have a corridor of free airspace that’s not contested and why they could punch further back in Russian occupied crimea . Ukraine took out so many anti air defence with HIMARS and grad . A few short range eliminations then they can fire deeper into Russian held ground . Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 🏴
Like with most of russian tech people fell for russian propaganda. That their crap air defence isn’t working as advertised should have been clear to everybody since when the Swedish declared that they are not afraid of those systems and don’t believe them to be a threat to their Air Force. They clearly did know something.
That's not true. All HIMARS were intercepted by the bridge.
Russia is using the bridge as a missile defence because the water underneath is a strategic important asset. So far they've had a 100% success rate.
@@andersjjensen Indeed! They have many underwater special vehicles that need protection.
To defend against this type of attack, you need an air-defense similar to Israel's Iron Dome or US C-Ram, other systems can also intercept like Sky-Sabre, but idk how is it in combat, cuz US and Israel are constantly intercepting rockets.
The Russians SAMs are pretty capable but not at the same level, at best can be at 50% accuracy.
The crew operating these systems got to be skilled and ready to defend, probably Russia does not invest enough on training, they fail anyways, i think these Air-defenses are basically just trash compare to Western equipment.
At the end, maybe some people laugh at these failures, but an important thing, always, never underestimated your enemy.
All this nonsense in Ukraine is as a result of Putin’s decision to make it a special military operation
Three things this video doesn't take into account:
The size of the missile - air defence systems designed to detect and protect against larger missiles, aircraft and drones.
The very short time of flight - usually less than a minute to detect, identify and launch counter-measures, plus distance/time to intercept.
Relative cost of missiles. Air defence missiles are very expensive.
Yes but the cost equation isn't just the cost of incoming projectile vs interceptor. The target of the incoming projectile has cost too and in this case is an airbase with hundreds of millions of dollars in planes and again in weapons/fuel for those planes. So it's probably worth it to let off a couple Millon dollar missiles to stop the 10-100k ones if they're capable.
@@MrDJAK777 The subject was the missiles getting through to the bridge in Kherson -Oops! Why use a half-million dollar missile to try to shoot down a $160k rocket , which will make a hole that can be repaired the next day? NO-ONE, not even Kiev has claimed the involvement of a missile at the Crimean airbase!
@@graemepeters5717 yeah thanks been flipping through so many similar videos thought it was a comment on a prior video. And fair enough but not claiming it could serve a tactical purpose that outweighs the pr/propaganda benefit atm.
@@kaa13 Not sure of your point? Yes, Russia want to use the bridge. But it's easier and cheaper to repair it than defend it with missiles.
@@graemepeters5717 they are having to guard the repair crews-not to protect them but to prevent them from running away.
What do you think the quality of repairs looks like, when the repairs are made by people who want the Russians gone.
"Oops, we got the cement mix wrong, the patch will fail if anything heavier than a motorcycle goes over it. Oh well" shrug.
Kinetic projectile bombardment or “orbital strikes if you are using nukes” increases the MLRS missiles speed from Mach 2 to 4-5 …. at a drop and no present Air defence can stop it ! Russia has similar old tech called Smersh but is only capable of unguided short range and not as powerful as HIMARS
Ballistic missiles can be intercepted. Conventional MLRS can be intercepted. So GMLRS can be intercepted. You just need the right system and a properly trained crew.
You have no idea what you're talking about
HIMARS is the launcher vehicle (M142). The rocket in question has the unassuming name of M31.
“Ballistic missiles can be intercepted”…. Can they though? On paper it does appear so, however there’s not a whole lot of real world scenarios where that’s played out. There’s only a handful of nations with those capabilities and nations with those capabilities tend to avoid conventional wars with each other. I’m highly skeptical of even the US’s capability to defend against a ballistic missile attack. Russia… we’ll if they US can’t pull it off, there’s no fucking way Russia could do better.
@@gregpaul882 Missile defense has come a long way, i'm sure that the systems like AEGIS and THAAD are more than capable to intercept a missile, the US & NATO has very powerful ANTI-Ballistic missile defense. here is a 9 years old video, so imagine now how crazy can it be.
ua-cam.com/video/3LPdmxnBkIU/v-deo.html
I believe Ukraine possess HARM anti radiation missles too. Something to think about for anti air defense crews. 🤔
I believe they are most effective launched from a fighter. Scary shit.
Worst thing for the Pantsir crews who are right underneath the truck and will die when hit by a HARM. This is an absurd concept.
The HIMARS minimum is not necessarily 6. Each rocket in a pod can be independently targeted and not all rockets need to be fired at the same time. They generally are fired in groups of 6, but when attacking multiple defended targets, they will split the pod to create as much complexity for air defense as possible. I would bet 5 of 6 hit. Only one bright flash in the sky.
if this was from himars it was done using long range ATACMS which a himars launcher can only hold and fire one of at a time but gains 190mi range and a larger payload for the sacrifice. The mlrs can likewise only hold/fire 2 of those.
@@MrDJAK777 the hits on the bridge were not likely to be ATACMS in my opinion. That is a larger and much more destructive warhead. 1-2 hits would sever the bridge span completely. The attack on Saki air base could definitely be ATACMS.
@@mandoreforger6999 I'm not so sure bridges are tough to take down particularly big ones even with the 300lb warhead you'd need several likely on the right spots and timed properly to do more than temporary damage. But it seems unlikely it was himars at all, I was just saying if it was, that's what they'd need to have been using due to the range.
I would bet the Ukraines didn’t fire more than 6. They don’t have unlimited numbers of them and I’m sure they knew Russia had increased the number of missile defense systems there. Firing 24 only to have the majority of them intercepted would be an incredible waste. Firing 6 and getting a hit or two would serve their purposes and save future capabilities. If they fire 6 and all of them are intercepted they’d know firing more would just be an even greater waste.
Firing 6 over the space of at least a minute (judging by the SAM launches) would make no sense since it gives the SAM site operators more time to react.
Russian "superpower" LOL! A regional power at best.
Use the radar guided missiles to take out the pantsirs while they are scanning for HIMARS 😁
Thank you for an excellent analysis and a Swedish perspective ;-)
It is very easy to saturate any anti-air system in the world and it is very simple. You send dozens of rockets to a defended target, so that the system gets fed up with them, and the system itself is then unable to shoot down all those rockets. Simple and easy to implement, especially since Ukraine also has MRLS systems, with the same ranges, which they mostly use to conceal attacks with much more accurate HIMARS missiles. It's not a science, the Palestinians do something similar to Israel, where Iron Dome cannot shoot down all rockets, and those rockets are much slower than the ones sent to Russian targets by Ukraine.
The system is not the problem, but its inability to defend itself against dozens of missiles at the same time..
That's the only real explanation for a problem that isn't a problem...there simply isn't a system in the world that can take down anything, no matter how advanced it is.
Yeah it's just really really hard to understand how,what with the high casualties,low morale,poor equipment,running out of artillery,tanks,planes,missiles and ammunition that some how some how Russia is still winning.🙄🙄🙄
How can they be winning when the plan was for a 3 day war? They've lost already. Deal with it, or keep whining. Up to you
Because all Russia has is more cannon fodder and more missiles. Russia does not care what it wastes or who it sends to slaughter, as long as it has more to send. It is brutal.
I think you hit the nail on the head, if the Himars attack at the same time as when a friendly aircraft is in the same area it makes it quite difficult to target in fear that the friendly aircraft might be accidentally hit instead but one thing this has all proven is that missile interceptors must be deployed with a hit ratio of 3 or 5 interceptors to one enemy warhead so it's not really a cost effective nor practically effective defensive system like the Israeli Iron Dome.
even the Iron dome shoots 3-4 missiles per incoming rocket. The difference is the agility of the Iron dome, their missiles have shown the ability to re-direct from one target to another if the first one is destroyed before it is reached
Russia stopped the missiles with the bridge.
There is a different fun club joint to the conversation!!! 😄