Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpursley | Hacker News Reader

> If Nato joins the conflict, Russian authorities only hope is their strategic weapons.

If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics (un-interceptable as of now) loaded with conventional warheads (non-nuke) followed by a barrage of their other (of larger variety and longer range than anything western) ballistic stand-off weapons. For now, Russia has the advantage in ballistics and layered air defense (S-300, 400 & 500, Pantsir + electronic warfare systems). They also have an advantage in field artillery (more variety & longer range than anything western). Even the US president had to admit the hypersonic complication.

View on HN

> If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics (un-interceptable as of now) loaded with conventional warheads (non-nuke) followed by a barrage of their other (of larger variety and longer range than anything western) ballistic stand-off weapons.

Exactly how many of those missiles does Russia have in its inventory? I suspect it's only enough to get NATO mad. If it had enough to do serious damage, I'd have expected the Russians to have done better in Ukraine.

Also, the Kinzhal and Avangard appear to be nuclear capable, and the Avangard is ICBM-launched. It would be, to use a technical term, stupid-as-fuck to use those with conventional warheads against a nuclear-armed adversary.

> Exactly how many of those missiles does Russia have in its inventory?

Good question, it's hard to say - but probably enough to knock out most NATO command and control and sink all carrier groups in Europe. Remember, MSM said they would run out in just a couple days about two months ago. Considering they're launching a handful per day for the past few months, probably not any time soon. You can bet that their factories are working three shift right now.

> Good question, it's hard to say - but probably enough to knock out most NATO command and control and sink all carrier groups in Europe.

What's your source on that? Because it sounds like a fantasy. The Russians haven't even knocked out most of Ukraine's command and control, and doing the same against NATO would be a much larger task.

Just an educated guess from an armchair general of the 404th chairborn division.

Now we are getting somewhere :-)

Yes, yes, uninterceptable. But there are Kessler sats up there who intercept the once un-interceptable ICBMs and there are toys down near the ground, that can intercept hypersonic missiles. All it takes is hard glorified buckshot, the detection is were its still at. And that is getting better all the time. Which is exactly the problem. All those bloated behemoths of the past, are running out of time.. they are not crisis stable and have nothing compelling going for them.

> there are toys down near the ground, that can intercept hypersonic missiles

Which toys, exactly? Like which specific weapons systems? Because that could be a game changer. From the research I've done, there are no capable systems as of yet unless there's some secret programs that we don't know about.

Early on, Russia hit the base near the Polish boarder used for mercenary intake and the incoming warning system didn't even come on. And those were supposedly not even hypersonic. Google up the pics, videos and interviews. It was devastating.

From one non native speaker to another(?):

I've learned that mercenaries are the paid ones, people like Russian Wagner etc.

The ones on the Ukrainian side are "volunteers".

You're deflecting again.

But sure, fair enough - a lot of those guys were volunteers. Either way, they got hammered as did the ones in the Odessa hotel (and likely others).

You are using this word "deflecting" and I don't think you know what it means.

Here's another "English as a foreign language" tip:

Every time you come across a word you are not sure about, look it up.

You'll be amazed at how much your English improves, both reading comprehension and writing.

Are you implying that I'm Russian or something? Not sure I follow...

I'm just pointing out that you don't know what mercenaries mean.

Or you didn't know that Ukrainian Foreign Legion unlike Russian Wagner and certain other aren't paid.

Either way it means you either don't master English completely, or you aren't up to snuff on what is going on.

I heard you, you actually made a good point regarding mercenary vs volunteer.

>If Nato joins the conflict, they will very quickly get aquatinted with Kinzhal, Tsirkon & Avangard hypersonics

Meanwhile, in the real world, Russia has to resort to anti-ship missiles, because it’s running out of cruise missiles.

You really believe that the guys who can't properly weld an armoured vehicle can produce ICBMs? That the guys who cannot produce their own cannon barrels any longer are capable of creating rocket engines? That the guys who cannot prevent thieves from stealing electronics from their doomsday plane are somehow capable to produce, maintain and secure a fleet of ICBMs?

Are you really sure that the Russian cleptocracy that sends sappers to the front line with wooden bricks wrapped up as TNT (yep) and styrofoam wrapped up as dry rations for "liberated" civilians are somehow capable of maintaining a fleet of strategic missiles at 1/100 of the budget that US spends to maintain theirs?

I'm not.

But I am afraid that if we give them 5 years they will manage to get something working.

And that scares me more than the thought of angering Putin right now.

Luckily I don't have to make this decisions, we have people in Nato who knows extremely much more than me. If they tell me to show up I do.

So all the videos getting posted by Ukrainians of missiles zipping through the sky as well as missile strikes are fakes? The western news showing video clips of Russian missiles hitting Ukrainian infrastructure like bridges and bases are fakes? The Pentagon openly saying that Russia has been using hypersonics - fakes? The Russian RD-180 rocket engines powering NASAs Atlas V are fakes?

Do you have access to a computer and basic Google skills?

I've heard talk of one hypersonic that hit a weapons cache early in the war. The rest of what I have seen has been ordinary missiles of various kinds, often either aimed at civilian infrastructure or extremely imprecise.

They haven't appeared to use a lot of hypersonics (no need, really); probably just testing and calibration. With just the kinetic energy alone, they can do massive damage. And make no mistake, the US will have them soon enough. There's a reason Russia made their moves now (during that gap).

As for preciseness, the newer ballistics have precision of over 90% (thanks, US designed chips). Older ones probably 75%. Their biggest weakness is access to chips.

And the imprecise hits are coming from the Tochka-Us, an old system that mostly the Ukrainians are fielding - but maybe pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists forces some, too.

Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Losing-Military-Supremacy-American-St...

> As for preciseness, the newer ballistics have precision of over 90%

Ok, so they are bombing civilians on purpose, is that what you say?

What do you think?

A combination:

It is no secret that much of the good Soviet tech was produced in Ukraine, both tanks and missiles, and without maintenance they won't be as precise as they were supposed to be. And for some reason Ukrainians hasn't wanted to do maintenance on Russians tech the last few years.

That said we've also seen plenty enough evidence that Russians shoot civilians on purpose.

If I remember correctly, the weapons cache turned out to be a barn.

Thus far, Russian stuff that actually works is the one from USSR times.

Tbh this “angering Putin” might make sense. As long as Rashists believe they can win, they continue to bleed out. When they realize they can’t win this, they could try something else, so it makes sense to try to defer that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com