Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "CRUX" channel.

  1.  @williamzk9083  Yes I know, but most of it is not practical for a cheap missile solution.
    1
  2.  @williamzk9083  it’s cheaper just looking at the weather forecast and deciding to launch on a crap weather day.
    1
  3. Estonia have donated more weapons than the U.K. - don’t get taken in by Johnson / Tory propaganda.
    1
  4. It never shot anything down before Ukraine and so far there is very little information on its success in Ukraine. Wonder why.
    1
  5.  @davidbetts9332  I think it is because there are very few systems out there.
    1
  6. Harpoon - L Block 1 is an old missile.
    1
  7. There will likely be no trade for Harpoon.
    1
  8. Yep, you can see how nasty Harpoon still is with just 3 or 4 hits in this RIMPAC vid. More impressive the missiles were fired by different platforms from surface to air launched all timed to hit at the same time. Apparently the P-8 salvo was a little late to the party :P https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uz2ZL06akU
    1
  9. 2- In addition, I have a hard time believing the MIG-31 can release anything at 2 + Mach.
    1
  10.  @joejoe-te4vx  What are you talking about?
    1
  11.  @joejoe-te4vx  Russia says they took down a transport carrying weapons and you believe them without evidence? Interesting disability.
    1
  12. The U.K. simply doesn’t have the right version for Ukraine unless they lash up a land based system with ship borne canisters onto the back of a Toyota pick up.
    1
  13. It is still lethal with a big warhead. It it also a sea skimmer that can dog leg into its target.
    1
  14. Thats what I think it is for, deterrence value. Neptune outranges Harpoon -L by some margin.
    1
  15. And get 60 Trident II missiles back in return packing 250 warheads, good deal?
    1
  16. The U.K. isn’t going to be sending Harpoons to Ukraine. They would have to invent a land based solution since RN Harpoons are not the land based version. I doubt there are many options for other nations handing over their land based systems either. For me we should support their Neptune missile program, let’s get those rounds manufactured for them.
    1
  17. What about Denmark?
    1
  18. They dont have to, Neptune already outranges Harpoon L.
    1
  19.  @williamzk9083  we don’t know anything about the motor so everything from that is always going to be too vague. Also, we can’t ignore the launch method in this sort of calculus. The missile climbs, the motor burns out and there is no evidence it is still powered in the terminal phase. In fact, there are suggestions the claimed ranges are exaggerated. It has very small control surfaces and in thin air - how much manoeuvring could it be capable of? The answer is - not much. It doesn’t really matter if it has some sort of chamber TVC - as you’ll know it will still need the control surfaces for directional authority. At some point ALL of these weapons have to stop manoeuvring in order to hit an aim point - that’s when they will be vulnerable to PAC-3 CRI. Judging by the debris it looks like intercept is pretty late in the endgame - considering that’s where Patriot shines - after all this is a terminal defence missile - the Russians probably tried the most difficult method of striking the Patriot system. Max interceptor velocity doesn’t matter as much under those circumstances, they don’t have to travel cross range very much. These are almost head on shots. A much better way to neutralise that battery would have been to save their cruise missiles and drones up for one mass attack - say 100 cruise missiles and 50 drones plus any radar decoys they have. Instead they do it piecemeal. I’ve never understood this. Maybe they don’t have the capacity, who knows.
    1
  20.  @williamzk9083  I think the Russians probably have some far more capable hypersonic concepts, I just don’t think Kinzhal is one of them.
    1
  21.  @williamzk9083  I’ve never seen it mentioned anywhere that Kinzhal has any sort of active terminal guidance and even if it did, that guidance would be of little utility regarding cross range capability - which is adversely affected - limited by the donor weapon. It’s unpowered, that’s a huge limitation in manoeuvre capability right there, it can’t recover bearing or range to target after carrying out large manoeuvres, not if it wants to hit an aim point. It’s why I believe its manoeuvre capability is exaggerated. If it were a glide body, that would give it an expanded flight envelope - it’s not a glide body.
    1
  22.  @dizzyfergy  did Boeing get the update contract? The problem is we have surface ship GWS60 - not much good to Ukraine. They need truck mounted weapons and interfaces. I can feel a lash up job coming! Makes more sense to just support their Neptune program as best we can. We could even manufacture their rounds then ship them back to UKR.
    1
  23.  @dizzyfergy  I’ve always said I’d much prefer to be the shooter than tty defending against these missiles, they all have nasty consequences if they work - and even if they don’t.
    1
  24.  @jasonsadventure  Neptune has a much smaller warhead than an AGM-84, in fact half the weight. Mind you I’d swap every Harpoon I had for one of those Russian bruisers. Their stuff used to terrify me.
    1
  25. They are pretty outmoded in 2022, although still pack a punch and fly very low and would still clean clean clock in a salvo launch. Unfortunately not the right fit for Ukraine, somebody would have to donate Harpoon land based systems to them and there aren’t many people who are ant to do that. The U.K. doesn’t have them for a start, only surface ship GWS60 and we don’t have many of those left. There were also a few air launched versions but they are probably in a bunker gathering dust next to the sub launched weapons.
    1
  26.  @jasonsadventure  Neptune can’t either now they’ve withdrawn the ships beyond its reach.
    1
  27.  @jasonsadventure  not really, their Kalibrs still hugely outrage Neptune. I doubt there was ever going to be a landing at Odessa anyway. The threat the Ukrainians face from the sea are small troop insertions and possibly shelling from smaller vessels. Hardly Neptune fodder.
    1
  28.  @williamzk9083  I think if you take an honest look at the missile capabilities based on the donor weapon and the fact it has no terminal seeker, I think Russian claims are over the top about it. With the kind of guidance and propulsion system it has ( one motor, no sustainer) it just isnt going to have great cross range capability in my book. Apart from making small course corrections, its flight path is probably quite predictable. The more it turns the slower it gets too in the terminal phase. Lastly, terminal speed is always limited by deceleration - if it is a bunker buster.I just dont buy the claims.
    1
  29. You got a lot right, bravo dude.
    1
  30.  @panda123id  LockMart can build 6,000 M31 a year. That is without any ramp up of production and there are of course huge stocks available in the US and Europe.
    1
  31.  @antyspi4466  UKR has destroyed 30 Ammo dumps and continues to do this every day.Cant tell me that has no material impact on their operations. They have already moved major staging out of HIMARS range.
    1
  32.  @RUTHLESSambition5  Nobody has sold a HIMARS, it is much more lileky your mother has been sold on the open market to a Russian BTG.
    1
  33.  @Rascallucci  They will not be getting UK Storm Shadow they will likely get the export versions of SCALP that have shorter range. Of course, the UK could purchase those and donate to Ukraine, how they would be launched is the real issue, they will have to invent a pylon for it and work out captive carry, and separation. This might take some time.....
    1
  34.  @Rascallucci  I agree, too little too late but I understand the delay up to the Russian Donbas offensive last summer but not afterwards. Ukraine will never have enough MAMBA and Patriot launchers to defend the entire country but they can defend Kyiv with them. My worry is Patriot especially is semi mobile so they will have to hide the components very well - separate all the ground elements - remote launchers etc.
    1
  35. It is even worse, you got the Monkey models of all of those systems.
    1
  36.  @JRBendixen  S-400 like any other AD system works better in an integrated network, something the Russians never had in Ukraine except in small areas of the front.
    1
  37.  @ChucksSEADnDEAD  I think the world now knows why it cost America trillions to develop anti missile defence. You cant half ass ABM defence.
    1
  38.  @pennyhardaway7491  No.
    1
  39. Correct, the video is a bit misleading. It is largely made up of volunteers.
    1
  40. No, there were plenty of VDV units in the north, but they melted away like everyboody else.
    1
  41. In the Cold War the entire WARPAC was a paper tiger but nobody would believe it.
    1
  42. Considering Kyiv doesn’t look like Stalingrad I think it’s safe to assume they are telling the truth about their missile defence success. If not, maybe you can tell us what happened to all of those Russian missiles?
    1
  43. lol what about now son.
    1
  44.  @williamzk9083  I think the biggest victory for Russia is getting the world to believe Kinzhal is capable of mach 10 or 12 when that is probably false. The issue for Ukraine is they only have medium altitude SAMs and they do not have enough launchers. This will change when they get Patriot and SAMP-T operational but that brings a different set of issues - they can only defend small areas with those. The Russians simply have to avoid those areas, Ukraine cannot defend all of its high value targets, in fact no country could against all threats. Personally I believe both Patriot and SAMP-T can engage thse Kinzhals because their likely performance is lower than the hype but the PK will not be stellar.
    1
  45. To be fair, Trump wanted those parades.....
    1
  46.  @kelvinw.1384  half of them are over 50 mate…
    1
  47.  @inquizative44  No, they arent capable of mach 10 or 12 I think that is baloney based on what the missiles are based on.
    1
  48. Thats because Patriot is not operational yet.
    1
  49.  @WalkOverHotCoal  A few things. A missile is not a nuclear warhead re entry body so that is a poor comparison. We are not talking about anything other than Kinzhal. It is not an air breather, a Scramjet or any other type of "jet."It has one rocket motor and less than half a ton of fuel. Of all of the various hypersonic missiles touted, Kinzhal is probably the most vulnerable to intercept, based on a few known details, it lacks a terminal guidance sensor and relies on strapdown INS - that`s a capability limitation in itself. The other hypersonic weapons are very problematic for BMD, and there are plenty of down sides for a defender - however, in our favour we are way ahead of both China and Russia regards a global sensor net -without which you have zero chance of intercepting a threat at range so you have to rely on point or local defence alone. Lastly, the USN has SM6 - people dont realise how good it is. However these hypersonics pose a serious threat.
    1
  50.  @WalkOverHotCoal  You are forgetting something, to sustain mach 12 you need something that is going to "sustain it."This is a single stage weapon with a 2,000 km range. After motor burn out - which will happen measured in a couple of minutes, then whatever post boost manouevering it does, thats going to reduce both range and velocity. And this is a missile not a reentry body so it will not be hitting the gorund at mach 12 either. The deceleration forces would be too great that is the limitation for these types of weapons if they are bunker busters. The Pentagon already know this too. Since everybody has had a chance to see these weapons on radar by now, somebody has all of the answers.
    1