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

  1.  @technoartfest8708  sorry but everything you wrote is just regurgitated propaganda with no basis in fact. You don’t know whether or not if anything you’ve mentioned is true or not, you’re running on “faith” alone. Patriot is cleaning Kinzhal clock and you’re just finding this hard to deal with.
    3
  2. Kinzhal is in no way a glide vehicle.
    2
  3.  @colincampbell767 this is why I think the US Army is going to reject it.
    2
  4. One other issue with PAC-2 was warhead type and fuzing, a blast frag HE warhead is only ever going to damage a missile - it won’t prevent the mass of the target from continuing on its path so it will still likely hit the target area - if the warhead is still intact it might detonate. Hit to kill is the game changer, the energy difference is measured in hundreds of megajoules. After a successful HTK there isn’t much left of the target and debris will more or less fall straight down.
    2
  5.  @pedropaula3341  until PAC-3 got on the chat.
    2
  6. It’s very rare that the Russian military rejects equipment that is not for purpose - at least publicly. I do remember an article that talked about a Guards tank division rejecting the first T-90 tanks because they were not fit purpose. However, you always have to take this level of oversight with a pinch of salt. On the other hand, testing opportunities for this type of weapon are probably extremely limited - regarding its performance against an air defence system. The ideal would be for non destructive testing, it’s possible. You model tests to get near misses.
    1
  7. The Russians aren’t the only ones who do that,the MDA do it quite often for GBI testing. As for Kinzhal, it emerged yesterday the Ukraine Patriot battery that took them down engaged them at <3.5 Mach so Kinxhal is much slower than claimed. Although it’s possible there was some confusion regarding missile types in the discussion between the Patriot operator and the journalist who got the informarían? He could have confused Kinzhal with Iskander M. Who knows.
    1
  8. What about track resilience? I’m sure people would love tracks that don’t come off just because a ditch looked at it funny. It was fully intact.
    1
  9.  @williamhayes981  the Russians had an M1 in a Moscow museum in 1991. The USAFE CO saw it for himself at the time, he said he imagined they thought it would be amusing to show him. He speculated they got it from a Middle Eastern source.
    1
  10.  @williamhayes981  The value for them would be in designing projectiles to defeat the armour.
    1
  11.  @nihluxler1890 the Saudis had more problems with their operators than they had with the system.
    1
  12. As we now know, Ukraine has PAC-3 CRI.
    1
  13. Launch angle is important. They tried several angles and had some misses until they got it right in the very same first engagement.
    1
  14.  @AlexCarloss and that last paragraph turned out to not be correct.
    1
  15. It likely attains its top speed in the boost phase.
    1
  16. PAC- 3 has entered the chat.
    1
  17.  @dankmartin6510  The lethality enhancer tried to address that problem.
    1
  18.  @jeffhedrich3551  It isnt.
    1
  19. The most important advance would be to design far more resilient track systems.
    1
  20. America has just dusted down some programs it had on the shelf.
    1
  21. I’m puzzled as to why a top attack APS wasn’t the first one fielded.
    1
  22. I do not belive for one second it hits Mach 10 or 12.
    1
  23. Man you were 100% correct.
    1