Discussion about this post

User's avatar
US_Government's avatar

Simplicius, this is the best of the best. Simply your Flag Ship article.

US/NATO forces like to prepare the battlefield with months of air campaigns SEADs before even letting a soldier touch the ground like in 1991 Iraq. Defensive systems such as the Patriot/S-300s etc must operate at 100% efficiency and effectiveness otherwise it is a failure as opposed to offensive systems. You mentioned that perhaps the Patriots were possibly 10-20% effective. I will venture out to say even if the system was say 85% effective that is still a failure for a defensive system for a 2 missile shoot per target. Oversaturation of an 85% effective system will render its mission kill and incapacitation. Sorry if I repeat a lot of similar statements. This war is a 'MAD' war in that Missiles, Artillery and Drones are the dominating factors and the Russians are FORCING the battle to the ground theater as opposed to the Air Theater

One final word. I always hate to use absolute words with the Russian MOD and Russian bloggers use such as 'impossible' Nothing in science and engineering is impossible. The Titanic was thought to be unsinkable. While the Khinzal is difficult to intercept, it is not inherently impossible. The US was studying hit to kill technologies in the 1960s and I would venture they have had a lot of good relative success. Therefore I urge people not to use such terms. Thanks

Expand full comment
ernest nichols's avatar

If my country had any sense, they would fire the nitwits at the CIA and NSA and hire you. I was Infantry, so not a rocket scientist by any means. I actually understand hypersonics now. Excellent work sir!

Expand full comment
163 more comments...

No posts