What makes Kinzhal or Iskander immune to interception by Patriot other than spiffy advertising? They are just SRBMs... Patriot has intercepted plenty of SBRMs of various models over its history, why not these?If you believe that Patriot can intercept Kinzhal or Iskander, I have that proverbial bridge over that proverbial sand place to sell you.
All SRBMs are "very fast". None are particularly agile.For starters, they are agile, very fast, and maneuverable SRBMs.
Even fucking Saudis could do it with those, that's somethings.And Patriot has a not-stellar career at shooting down even much more primitive ones like Scuds...
Iskander is about 20% faster, (Kinzhal even more), the warheads have some degree of maneuverability, and are equipped with pen-aids (ECM and/or decoys).
Way, way more difficult to intercept.
And how many modernizations did Patriot go through since Gulf War 1?Iskander is about 20% faster, (Kinzhal even more), the warheads have some degree of maneuverability, and are equipped with pen-aids (ECM and/or decoys).
Way, way more difficult to intercept.
- DT-5, conducted Feb. 5, 2000, was the third successful intercept of a tactical ballistic missile target. Common sense would predict the next test after the success of DT-3 would be DT-4 but there was a little shuffle in the mix and DT-5 was done first back in February. With each test, the mission became a little more complicated. By DT-5, the objective was to demonstrate ground system and missile capability to detect, track and engage a helical-maneuvering full-body TBM target in a remote launch Fire Unit configuration.
I am amused by the untranslated Khokhols (slur for Ukrainians), estenno and the lethal Grandma's Jar.Translation..:
SNIP
No, it really, really isn't.Same as other nations.
No, it really, really isn't.
Allow me to explain this to you in meme form:
Russian military technology is notable in that it could compete at all with American/NATO hardware. It very much is not at the same level, especially since the end of the Cold War.
Meh. Some technological capabilities absolutely are gamechangers. Like modern NVGs. No amount of training can substitute for the capabilities they give.Since the Cold War, in all of these 'very near peer' wars, you can have swapped the hardware and the results are mostly the same.
You know, if we apply your logic, M1 Abrams is a shitty tank because insurgents in bicycles defeated them.
The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.
So, going back to your original point, perhaps the Russians used their missiles stupidly and thus made them more vulnerable to interception?The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.
Not true.Since the Cold War, in all of these 'very near peer' wars, you can have swapped the hardware and the results are mostly the same.
You know, if we apply your logic, M1 Abrams is a shitty tank because insurgents in bicycles defeated them.
The training, support, and professionalism of an army count a lot more than the hardware.