Ukrainian training ground: Russian air defense against American MLRS

79
Ukrainian training ground: Russian air defense against American MLRS
M142 combat vehicles transferred to Ukraine. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine


A few months ago, the United States and its allies provided the Kyiv regime with M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, as well as GMLRS series ammunition for them. This weapon is actively used in different sectors of the front, but the results of its use did not justify hopes. Russian air defense successfully detects and intercepts most of the missiles.



Shot down in the air


Foreign MLRS appeared in Ukraine in June-July and almost immediately fell into the combat zone. Starting from the first days of July, this technique is used almost daily in different sectors of the front. With the help of foreign weapons, Ukrainian formations are trying to shell Russian military facilities and civilian infrastructure.

The Ukrainian side claims that HIMARS and MLRS with GMLRS projectiles are highly effective and successfully hit numerous Russian targets. However, no evidence of this is given - due to the lack of noticeable success. At the same time, curious and detailed information reflecting the real state of affairs is published by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

In daily reports, the Ministry of Defense regularly mentions the use of Soviet and foreign-style MLRS by the enemy. In addition, data on the interception of rockets are being announced. So, just last week, our air defense successfully detected and destroyed about fifty GMLRS missiles in the air.


HIMARS launches a rocket. Photo by the US Department of Defense

For example, in a report dated October 8, it is reported that on the previous day HIMARS MLRS tried to fire at four settlements, but our air defense intercepted 21 missiles. The next day there was only one such shelling, and 4 shells were destroyed in the air. On other days, the situation looks similar, only the places of shelling and the number of missiles shot down change.

General trends


It is known that Ukrainian formations are more actively using the M142 wheeled MLRS, which are distinguished by improved mobility. In addition, they try to save their equipment and not expose it to retaliation. Having fired a portable ammunition load, the combat vehicle leaves the firing position. All this seriously affects the possible results of fire and imposes certain restrictions.

In this context, information from our Ministry of Defense should be considered. So, on October 9, Ukrainian rocket artillery tried to attack one settlement, but Russian air defense intercepted four missiles. Apparently, the attack was carried out by a single HIMARS launcher. She fired no more than six missiles and left the position. Then most of the shells of such a volley were intercepted. No more than 1-2 missiles broke through to the target.

In the previous report, several such attacks were described. This time, four settlements were shelled, and 21 rockets were intercepted. It seems that in this case, four M142 MLRS with six rounds each worked in different areas. No more than 24 missiles could be launched, and up to three managed to break through the defenses.


Fires MARS II - German version of the M270. Photo by the German Ministry of Defense

The remaining episodes of the use of foreign MLRS look similar. The enemy uses individual launchers or small units. A limited number of missiles fly to the target, and most of them are destroyed in the air. Often the enemy tries to overload our air defense by simultaneously firing from several different types of MLRS. However, this does not help, and the bulk of the rockets do not reach the target.

On a ballistic trajectory


Ukrainian formations use guided missiles of the GMLRS family with the M270 and M142 - M30 and M31 products of various modifications. Serial missiles of this line are designed for firing at a distance of 15 to 92 km. A 91-kg monoblock warhead or an “alternative” charge with a large number of ready-made submunitions is delivered to the target. The missiles are equipped with a control system based on inertial and satellite navigation.

Serial GMLRS missiles are equipped with a unified solid-propellant jet engine. There are no engine controls of any kind, and in all cases the thrust and duration of operation are the same. The flight speed reaches 2,5M. The firing range is controlled by changing the elevation angle of the launcher, which determines the parameters of the ballistic trajectory.

The control system allows the rocket to only slightly adjust its course and stay on the desired trajectory. The ability to actively maneuver is absent. Thus, the trajectory of the projectile is ballistic and predictable, and small maneuvers have little effect on the situation.


MLRS MLRS launcher without ammunition containers. Photo Missilery.info

The predictability of the flight path negatively affects the combat qualities of the projectile. This factor greatly simplifies the operation of all air defense components, from detection radar to anti-aircraft missiles. High supersonic speed and trajectory correction maneuvers are not decisive factors in this case.

Means of defense


According to known data, the Russian army has created an advanced layered air defense system in the zone of the Special Operation, which includes all the necessary components. Such defense regularly destroys enemy planes and helicopters, and also successfully intercepts MLRS shells and operational-tactical missiles.

In order to control the airspace, a large number of various radars are deployed. The situation in the air is simultaneously controlled by stationary systems of long and medium range, such as "Nebo-SV / SVU" or "Niobium", as well as their own stations for detecting anti-aircraft systems of military air defense - "Tor-M2", "Pantsir-S", "Buk -M3", etc. In addition, counter-battery radars are in operation, capable of detecting and tracking precisely artillery ammunition.

Data from the detection radar is used by firepower. All modern domestic air defense systems / air defense missile systems of military air defense are capable of intercepting not only aerodynamic, but also ballistic targets at high supersonic speed. In particular, GMLRS projectiles are successfully hit by serial anti-aircraft missiles.


Two M142 installations in the process of reloading. Photo by the US Department of Defense

The enemy is trying to break through our air defense due to a large number of missiles. However, our radars and air defense systems have a large number of channels for tracking and firing, and it is extremely difficult to overload such defenses. This requires a really massive shelling involving a large amount of equipment. Such capabilities of the enemy are extremely limited and their further preservation is not guaranteed.

Thus, the existing domestic military air defense system in real combat conditions has confirmed its ability to hit all expected targets. Both various aircraft and ammunition are successfully identified and destroyed, incl. MLRS missiles. Due to the specifics of the current operation, such capabilities are of particular importance for the security of troops and civilians.

Decreasing Threat


A few months ago, the Kyiv regime received modern MLRS and high-performance ammunition from foreign partners - and was unable to fully realize the potential of these weapons. The achievement of the desired results was prevented by the small amount of equipment received, the lack of experience in its operation and proven tactics, as well as a number of other factors.

In this case, opposition from the Russian army is of decisive importance. The search and fire destruction of launchers, their positions and places of storage of ammunition is carried out. If the MLRS or HIMARS combat vehicle managed to get to the position, they will try to cover it with fire, and the flying projectiles will become the target for air defense. And practice shows that all these tasks are effectively solved, and this significantly reduces the threat from foreign missiles.
79 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    11 October 2022 16: 08
    If the MLRS or HIMARS combat vehicle managed to get to the position, they will try to cover it with fire, and the flying projectiles will become the target for air defense. And practice shows that all these tasks are effectively solved, and this significantly reduces the threat from foreign missiles.

    Give something God. I hope that at least now the right conclusions will be drawn.
  2. +14
    11 October 2022 16: 11
    . And practice shows that all these tasks are effectively solved, and this significantly reduces the threat from foreign missiles.
    . The most effective air defense is your own "tanks" at enemy airfields.
  3. +10
    11 October 2022 16: 16
    The fact that they shoot down is very good. The question is different - the cost of such interceptions. How exactly do we bring them down? Is the price of HIMARS unguided missiles comparable to our anti-aircraft ones? Even if it is equal, the alignment is still not very in our favor .. Maybe - it is necessary to develop a front-line air defense system with the cheapest possible missiles just to counter the MLRS? Moreover, the goal is not very difficult. Otherwise, no treasury will be enough ..
    1. +3
      11 October 2022 16: 29
      with the cheapest missiles just to counter MLRS?

      Are you describing a fight? the consequences. Such complexes should not reach their working distance at all.
      1. +2
        11 October 2022 16: 55
        Not all Western countries have their own MLRS, for example, France.
        Why a question? Omitting their military doctrine or not betting on it...
        Despite the fact that the self-propelled guns "Caesar" were seen in action, and that's not all.
        1. +3
          11 October 2022 21: 11


          French army use M270, they call it LRU
          1. 0
            12 October 2022 02: 52
            And in my message it was written about my own development.
        2. +5
          11 October 2022 23: 16
          Quote: Maxim G
          Not all Western countries have their own MLRS, for example, France

          Is it only in France? Take the same England or Germany! They don’t have MLRS of their own design now! Although Germany had its own 110-mm MLRS LARS-1/2 ... In England, an experimental MLRS LIMAWS was created ... By the way, the French developed their MLRS SYRA u Rafale ... The French generally "originalchili" ... developed anti-aircraft MLRS "Javelot" and "Catulle"! But everyone "voluntarily-compulsorily" abandoned their own developments, because the Americans "kindly" asked them!
          1. -2
            12 October 2022 02: 52
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            But all "voluntarily-compulsorily" abandoned their own developments, because the Americans "kindly" asked them!

            Is there any evidence?
      2. 0
        11 October 2022 19: 22
        Consequences of what? The fact that Ukraine still exists? What an idyllic idea you have.
    2. +2
      11 October 2022 16: 34
      Well, there is a Shell, with cheap and massive missiles. Just his legitimate goal. And if something very valuable is covered up, then they will fork out for Buk, he will start working before the Shell.
      1. +3
        11 October 2022 19: 00
        Just his legitimate aim

        Against an essentially ballistic supersonic target? I think it's very doubtful.
      2. -3
        12 October 2022 15: 17
        Is there any evidence of interception other than conversations? The shell is somehow overrated.
    3. +17
      11 October 2022 16: 49
      Quote: paul3390
      Is the price of HIMARS unguided missiles comparable to our anti-aircraft ones?

      GMLRS missiles are much cheaper than missiles capable of fighting them. In addition, for reliable interception, at least two missiles must be aimed at one target.
      The "author" is certainly mistaken in claiming that they can be effectively destroyed by short-range air defense systems. Here we need much more long-range systems, of which we do not have so many and they are not present near the front line. Relatively
      the real effectiveness of our missile defense systems in the front line, Antonovsky Bridge is a clear evidence of this. As for the article itself, it is frankly capricious and out of touch with reality.
      1. +1
        11 October 2022 22: 11
        They wrote that a rocket to Himarsu costs 150 tons of bucks. How much does a "shell" or "torah" rocket cost?
        1. +2
          12 October 2022 00: 56
          Quote: TermNachTER
          They wrote that a rocket to Himarsu costs 150 tons of bucks. How much does a "shell" or "torah" rocket cost?

          The shell is useless here, and Thor does not have much chance. And Buka or S-300V missiles cost more than 1 million dollars.
          1. +1
            12 October 2022 09: 39
            Why is the "shell" bad if it was developed specifically for MLRS and other purposes?
            1. +2
              12 October 2022 11: 38
              Quote: TermNachTER
              Why is the "shell" bad if it was developed specifically for MLRS and other purposes?

              You are mistaken, the Pantsir short-range air defense system was originally created to counter aerodynamic targets.
              1. 0
                18 November 2022 15: 41
                Quote: Tucan
                Quote: TermNachTER
                Why is the "shell" bad if it was developed specifically for MLRS and other purposes?

                You are mistaken, the Pantsir short-range air defense system was originally created to counter aerodynamic targets.

                Pay attention, for example, to the SOC of the current Shell. She is not at all what she once was.
          2. 0
            18 November 2022 15: 39
            Quote: Tucan
            The shell is useless here, and Thor does not have much chance.

            Interesting, but can you technically substantiate these statements?
        2. -1
          12 October 2022 15: 18
          What kind of rocket, they are different, there are generally stupid and cheap
      2. +5
        11 October 2022 22: 55
        The "author" is certainly mistaken in claiming that they can be effectively destroyed by short-range air defense systems.

        They may and may, but I suspect that at the moment of defeat they themselves may be in the missile's affected area.
        1. +1
          12 October 2022 00: 58
          Quote: wlkw
          They may and may, but I suspect that at the moment of defeat they themselves may be in the missile's affected area.

          Certainly. Yes
        2. 0
          18 November 2022 15: 43
          Quote: wlkw
          They may and may, but I suspect that at the moment of defeat they themselves may be in the missile's affected area.

          Why?
      3. The comment was deleted.
    4. +12
      11 October 2022 16: 50
      “Is the price of HIMARS unguided missiles comparable to our anti-aircraft ones?” - you need to compare other parameters - the cost of your own missile and the possible damage from an enemy missile.
    5. KCA
      -6
      11 October 2022 16: 53
      For some reason, I’m sure that the cost of the M30 and M31 is 5 times more expensive than even the Buk missile, or even 10, the Pentagon bought the same hammers for $ 80, why not buy the RS for 500? Have our front-line air defense systems disappeared somewhere? Thor disappeared or Shells with new missiles, which 000 pieces are placed in the same container?
      1. +3
        11 October 2022 19: 02
        Thor disappeared or Shells with new missiles, which 4 pieces are placed in the same container?

        The shell is not "front" but object. And 4 of these missiles but in reality never had. The concept was just there. And against these RZSO, these small drone strikers are rather powerless.
        1. KCA
          -4
          11 October 2022 20: 12
          ZPRK with the ability to shoot on the go, non-stop, exclusively objective? Well, if you haven’t seen it, then of course there are no such missiles, and, by the way, they were developed not only against drones, but specifically against MLRS
          1. +3
            12 October 2022 03: 15
            No need to fantasize and come up with absurdities.
            These rockets on the topic “Nail” are specifically against small drones such as a quadrocopter, that is, that little thing that you feel sorry for a real rocket, and this racket does not have enough energy to bring down the RS M31, which has an approach speed to the target of more than 2 Machs.
          2. 0
            12 October 2022 12: 52
            ZPRK with the ability to shoot on the go, non-stop, exclusively objective?

            oh mom .. He doesn’t have such an opportunity either.
            1. 0
              24 November 2022 23: 14
              But why? He can shoot rockets on the move, but he cannot shoot from a cannon.
      2. 0
        18 November 2022 15: 43
        Quote: KCA
        The Pentagon bought hammers for $80,

        For 500.
    6. -3
      11 October 2022 19: 51
      price of HIMARS unguided missiles
      They are controlled, and most importantly, American. That is, very expensive (volley-million dollars according to some data). And begging for them is getting harder and harder.
    7. +4
      11 October 2022 21: 16
      Good idea, the Israelis managed to make the same Iron House.
    8. 0
      12 October 2022 00: 57
      The cost will decrease when the shell-see tbm appears! Presented layout in March of this year. Everything is the same, but without a cannon and without a station for detecting air targets: it will receive target designation from other vehicles in the battery. It will have 12-24r for its place of 48 missiles and the second model comes with 96 missiles. Then the efficiency will be several times more effective
    9. 0
      12 October 2022 05: 52
      It doesn't have to be counted. How much does an object that protects air defense cost?

      Otherwise, it turns out that it is unprofitable to use a tank against infantry, the shell costs more, let them run further laughing
      1. 0
        12 October 2022 06: 13
        No, and so too. Otherwise - what is a child prodigy worth, the use of which stupidly ruins the treasury? And which the troops are afraid to use, because of the high cost? Avon - we seem to have a lot of fancy bombers, do they fly a lot? Big sense from them? And I think this is because for the loss, let's say the SU-34s will fuck everyone. Better not to use it at all.
        1. 0
          12 October 2022 14: 32
          The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.

          Like Tirpitz, no?!
    10. -1
      12 October 2022 15: 14
      Why do you think the goal is not difficult? Fast with small epr and a lot.
  4. +7
    11 October 2022 16: 18
    They are only knocked down on the way. But it all depends on tactics. No object can be covered with 100% reliability. First they bring down a couple of hurricanes, and then when the air defense is reloaded, they add chimeras from another position. A sort of principle of shoot and run (hit and run). Only increased air defense and saturation will be able to stop them. In general, the son of air defense shnikov praises. Those really plow there 24 by 7 without a break.
    And they themselves do not fly and do not give to others.
    1. -3
      11 October 2022 19: 07
      But is it possible to miss the hurricanes, and release the saved charges on the chimars?
      1. +2
        11 October 2022 19: 19
        I am not an air defense specialist. I am from the so-called. "deaf-mutes". GU MO No. 12.
        I'm not sure that air defense is able to recognize what is flying. Here, someone will outwit someone. Ukrainians, of course, are still the same ... but they have never been bad warriors.
        1. -3
          11 October 2022 20: 36
          Quote from mad big
          I'm not sure that air defense is able to recognize what is flying.
          Yes, key question.
          Quote from mad big
          Here, someone will outwit someone.
          Judging by the destroyed bridges and burned-out warehouses, one of the parties is leading with a devastating score.
          Quote from mad big
          but they were never bad warriors.

          For the past eight years, the opposite view has prevailed on this score.
          1. -3
            12 October 2022 15: 23
            For the past eight years, there has been a completely opposite opinion on this matter.

            It is still like this: "NATO mercenaries are fighting", "plans are being developed in the Pentagon."
  5. +8
    11 October 2022 16: 26
    At the same time, interesting and detailed information reflecting the real state of affairs is published by the Russian Ministry of Defense.


    I couldn't read any further after that...
    I thought it would be something interesting, but here it’s another “hat-capping” campaign ... sad
    1. +4
      11 October 2022 18: 04
      This should be given credit to Antonovsky Bridge. And then he, the poor fellow, is not aware that everything goes astray and everything is destroyed.
  6. +3
    11 October 2022 16: 27
    Quote: rocket757
    . And practice shows that all these tasks are effectively solved, and this significantly reduces the threat from foreign missiles.
    . The most effective air defense is your own "tanks" at enemy airfields.

    And boots of soldiers in enemy territory soldier
  7. +9
    11 October 2022 16: 34
    Thus, the existing domestic military air defense system in real combat conditions has confirmed its ability to hit all expected targets. Both various aircraft and ammunition are successfully identified and destroyed, incl. MLRS missiles. Due to the specifics of the current operation, such capabilities are of particular importance for the security of troops and civilians.

    Of course, our air defense shoots down part of the rocket and no one denies this, but to say that EVERYTHING ??? Whoever has a connection with the author, please tell him about our destroyed warehouses, the affected army launchers and groups, in general, change the pink lenses in your glasses to some more colorless ones ...
    1. -2
      12 October 2022 15: 24
      The author is given a task, he consistently performs it. “Everything” is said, which means 100%, Konashenkov will not lie, he is an officer.
  8. +11
    11 October 2022 16: 39
    The Ukrainian side claims that HIMARS and MLRS with GMLRS projectiles are highly effective and successfully hit numerous Russian targets. However, no evidence of this is given - due to the lack of noticeable success.

    Let's not downplay the importance of these MLRS? It's good that they are few. But those that are available carried out a dozen large military depots and damaged the Antonovsky bridge near Kherson. I don’t even want to talk about what would have happened if Kyiv had not 20, but 200.
  9. +2
    11 October 2022 16: 57
    It was easier to prevent American systems from entering the territory of Ukraine. I'm tired of this prolonged tango. Logistics is not broken, at least fill up fuel and lubricants, ammunition is delivered regularly. It remains only to flap their wings and rely on air defense.
    1. 0
      11 October 2022 21: 21
      Quote: Trunk
      It was easier to prevent American systems from entering the territory of Ukraine

      And if we had normal attack drones? What, is it so difficult to detect? The same inconspicuous loitering ammunition could search for himars.
  10. +2
    11 October 2022 17: 34
    HIMARS and MLRS with GMLRS projectiles are highly effective and successfully hit numerous Russian targets. However, no evidence of this is given - due to the lack of noticeable success.
    I don’t know ... It is ineffective only when there is air defense. Everything that flies to us is quite accurate and sorry for not being patriotic, "effectively", but the specific sound of breaks, everyone knows.
  11. +3
    11 October 2022 18: 54
    Russian air defense successfully detects and intercepts most of the missiles.

    I don’t even know whether to write again about the Antonovsky Bridge or not .. There, too, everything seems to have been spotted and shot down.
  12. 0
    11 October 2022 19: 09
    If out of 6 missiles fired, 1 or 2 reach, but one of the not shot down missiles has a tactical nuclear warhead, then you yourself understand that you could have shot down nothing with the same success, the result will be the same.
  13. +11
    11 October 2022 19: 32
    Hymars are so useless that Ryabov writes a second article about them in 4 days.
    1. +2
      11 October 2022 21: 23
      Quote: Negro
      Hymars are so useless that Ryabov writes a second article about them in 4 days.

      Yes, everything is useless for the campaign. And the Himars and Javelins. Wait, useless air defense systems from South Korea will also be installed.
      1. 0
        11 October 2022 21: 39
        Quote: Pilat2009
        .Schas here they will also put useless air defense systems from South Korea.

        It will be ironic if Korean S-350s are sent
  14. +4
    11 October 2022 20: 21
    The control system allows the rocket to only slightly adjust its course and stay on the desired trajectory. The ability to actively maneuver is absent. Thus, the trajectory of the projectile is ballistic and predictable, and small maneuvers have little effect on the situation.

    An interesting paragraph, sucking all sorts of nonsense out of your finger, is equal to flying all the RS of all countries, and only recently the United States has a project to install a rocket-powered guided glide bomb on the M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS, and they are already being tested, which allows the ammunition to perform maneuvers at the final trajectories.
  15. +3
    11 October 2022 21: 49
    A few months ago, the United States and its allies provided the Kyiv regime with M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems, as well as GMLRS series ammunition for them. This weapon is actively used in different sectors of the front, but the results of its use did not justify hopes. Russian air defense successfully detects and intercepts most of the missiles.


    Not an analytical article, but urapatriotic nonsense !!!

    You can judge the effectiveness of air defense against Haymars on the example of the Andreevsky Bridge, which in a month the dill was turned into a sieve.

    Now imagine that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can hit any headquarters, any location of personnel, any warehouse with fuel and lubricants or a b / p, any accumulation of equipment on a front with a length of 1000 km and a depth of 80 km or more !!!

    We couldn’t cover the bridge, and even more so we won’t be able to cover a separate headquarters, warehouse, location of the l / s !!!

    With modern intelligence means and the number of Ukrainian agents and sympathizers of Zelensky's nationalist regime in the liberated territory, disguise does not save.

    One hope is that the Armed Forces of Ukraine do not have many missiles to Haymars, but those that are there are enough to inflict significant damage on our troops.

    The most unpleasant thing is that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has never presented evidence of the discovery of Hymars and his destruction.

    This MLRS operates at a distance of 80 km, only UAVs can detect it, but it is very difficult to do this due to anti-aircraft defense, all the more difficult to hit these complexes that are booked at the very least. Tornado has a large spread, in addition, by the time he reaches the line of opening fire and aims, Hymars will already change position.

    We need strike UAVs that could penetrate 100 km behind enemy lines, conduct reconnaissance for a long time and, if necessary, immediately attack the target.

    Something like Gerani-2, but not as loud and able to independently conduct reconnaissance.

    In the meantime, Hymars is a big problem for us, many familiar acquaintances who died in the NWO were killed by him. It flew to headquarters, to locations, to warehouses with a b / p.
  16. 0
    11 October 2022 22: 18
    Himars is a serious weapon, it should not be underestimated. But also overestimate. The "defense - attack" dispute has been going on for several thousand years, there has always been an answer to any wunderwaffe.
  17. The comment was deleted.
  18. +4
    11 October 2022 23: 18
    "However, no evidence of this is given - due to the lack of noticeable success." - well, yes, yes. Only from the front people write differently. And they also write about knocking down that although they have mastered it compared to the beginning of the application, but in order for EVERYTHING to go astray, no one writes about this (except for the author).
    Actually, the fact that the United States did not supply them with more installations, as I understand it, is due, among other things, to the very high consumption of rocket shells on the delivered installations. This is a one year supply. Yes, and the US is escalating slowly.
    "A few months ago, the Kyiv regime received modern MLRS and high-performance ammunition from foreign partners - and was unable to fully realize the potential of these weapons." - but this is not even funny. Implemented so that it did not seem a little. At the same time, they have only a couple of dozen accurate MLRS. And thanks to them, they raised a lot of goals. One can imagine what 100 installations would have done ... And we had 60 Tornado-S, and a hurricane-1 m, but a similar effect was not observed. Perhaps, including because they hid and dispersed ammunition, and did not put it in large piles. There is also a question about accuracy. Antonovsky bridge is not destroyed - but GMLRS shells fall into it EXACTLY. That is, their QUO is very small. I would like to compare with our...
    1. 0
      12 October 2022 00: 23
      By the way, 4 more have just been installed.
  19. 0
    12 October 2022 02: 25
    Quote from mad big
    Only increased air defense and saturation will be able to stop them.

    It is never possible to win by defense because the attacker has the initiative.
    Only the destruction of these same missile systems can stop. But with this, the Russian army has huge problems
  20. +2
    12 October 2022 02: 28
    Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
    now imagine that the Armed Forces of Ukraine can hit any headquarters, any location of personnel, any warehouse with fuel and lubricants or b / p, any accumulation of equipment on a front with a length of 1000 km and a depth of 80 km or more

    Presented.
    and now they imagine that Russia has Iskanders that can hit any target at a distance of 500 km from the front line. The question is why don't they hit as effectively as the Hummers then?
  21. -1
    12 October 2022 05: 49
    Let's take a stupid example. You know that an assassination attempt is being prepared on you. You go to buy yourself a body armor and try to buy one that is cheaper ... bullets? The economy of air defense is not to bring down a ballistic missile cheaper, but to ensure that it does not cause damage in excess of the cost of an anti-missile.
  22. +1
    12 October 2022 10: 54
    The HIMARS and MLRS complexes are a serious enough threat. Suffice it to recall the destruction of the headquarters before the Balakleysko-Izyum "regrouping". And there are warehouses, bridges, etc. Air defense is not effective enough against HIMARS (example bridges). Especially during a mass raid. And you can’t cover all air defense facilities. At the same time, the GMLRS missiles and the Tor and Pantsir missiles are approximately equal in cost. To reduce damage, it is now necessary to place all important objects in shelters, distribute them in space and mask them. For example, headquarters can be placed in industrial complexes.
    More effective protection against MLRS could be implemented by ZAK "Derivation-Air Defense" due to the high density of fire. But they are not in the troops. The most effective way to deal with HIMARS is through early detection and elimination. But the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation do not yet have the necessary technical means for this.
  23. -1
    12 October 2022 14: 26
    Sometimes I think, maybe, after all, for every shelling of a peaceful civilian, they can respond with the same, but cubed?
    After 100 thousand (yes, 100 thousand of their corpses are better than 1 of ours, is there any objection?) corpses in Kyiv at a time, they may think about the fact that "it was not worth doing this."
    But no - so repeat 20 times and there is no Kyiv.


    If it turns out that there are all such animals there, we don’t need them (but the hydroelectric power station \ nuclear power plant \ land will come in handy, especially since it is already ours).
    Since we "do not have an ideology", we must do what is beneficial for the country, otherwise it is not at all clear what to do.
    1. -2
      12 October 2022 16: 14
      As an ideology, do you propose the destruction of "wrong" civilian Ukrainians? One German leader also preached such an ideology.
      1. 0
        12 October 2022 16: 41
        How convenient, they do what they want, and touch these torn condoms - "a tifashiiist !!!".
  24. -1
    12 October 2022 15: 13
    However, no evidence of this is given - due to the lack of noticeable success. At the same time, curious and detailed information reflecting the real state of affairs is published by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

    Well, yes, Gmlrs are safe, and the Ministry of Defense that actually destroyed air defense, aviation, all tanks (twice) publishes "detailed information"
  25. +1
    12 October 2022 15: 40
    Even if out of 24 missiles fired 2-3 hit the target, this is already a successful salvo, damage, losses, someone's life and injury.
    Therefore, such an "justification" does not roll ...
    And if "Smerch" or "Grad" produces ammunition without satellite target designation, covers the square and does not inflict any damage, losses, except for craters in the field, this cannot be considered a successful volley ...
  26. 0
    12 October 2022 17: 05
    Tactically, these installations cause damage, strategically they do not. And if our engineering troops could not stop the problem of the destroyed Antonov bridge, then why did we come there at all?
    1. -1
      17 October 2022 13: 27
      When in the winter the entire grouping near Kherson surrenders, because there will be no food or ammunition, will it already be "strategic" or not yet?
  27. The comment was deleted.
  28. 0
    14 November 2022 19: 30
    Time has shown Hymers strength. They surrendered Kherson to Khokhls and the Hymers became one of the reasons.
    1. 0
      18 November 2022 15: 53
      Quote: Mekey Iptyshev
      Time has shown Hymers strength. They surrendered Kherson to Khokhls and the Hymers became one of the reasons.

      The main one - the right bank is high, and the left one is low. If it were the other way around, then there would be no surrender.
  29. 0
    24 November 2022 00: 51
    Wonderfully explained how to deal with them.
    Unclear. Why they hit our troops and cities.
    Maybe "something is not right in the conservatory".
    The head of a fish - have you tried to smell it?
    Seems to stink.
  30. 0
    8 December 2022 11: 54
    The Antonovsky bridge was destroyed by the Haimars, the bridge of the Kakhovskaya hydroelectric station - by them, after which there was a regrouping of troops with the surrender of Kherson and farewell to the dream of Nikolaev. And the author considers such a weapon to be weak. Well, well ... One Hymars shot costs 150 thousand dollars, which is not a little, but the accuracy, range and maneuverability allow you to shoot without your own losses. If the ukrovermacht had not had highmars, the war would have gone differently.
  31. 0
    18 January 2023 21: 24
    M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS, as well as GMLRS series ammunition for them. This weapon is actively used in different sectors of the front, but the results of its use did not justify hopes. Russian air defense successfully detects and intercepts most of the missiles.
    ______________

    author are you an idiot??? you tell the Antonov bridge about it! whose damage licked our group to the other side!

    who let this person write articles?