The use by the RF Armed Forces of missile decoys without a warhead led to the use of up to 80 percent of the ammunition for the IRIS-T air defense system by the Armed Forces of Ukraine

A series of operations to strike at objects of the Kyiv regime with missile weapons and drones made it possible for the Russian Armed Forces to obtain up-to-date data on the state of the air defense system of Ukraine. Moreover, in some cases, the use of full-fledged missiles was not required to implement this kind of plan. In this regard, the usual “blanks”, “tricks” did their job - aviation ammunition without warhead.

The use of such technical means was also reported in the Russian defense department, noting that the enemy, misled, actively used his missiles against missile blanks, eventually giving the opportunity for full-fledged strike weapons to achieve their goals.
According to the latest information, during the recent missile attacks of the RF Armed Forces, Ukrainian air defense crews most actively spent their anti-aircraft guided missiles, including missiles of complexes delivered from Germany, in the Kyiv and Odessa regions. Russian decoy ammunition, imitating full-fledged missiles, made it possible to use up to 80 percent of the stocks of IRIS-T missiles supplied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine as an additional arsenal after the previous "zeroing". To use up in the sense that the Ukrainian military "with rapture" fired kits at the same "blanks", after which real (combat) missiles flew. Zelensky immediately sent a request to Germany for urgent deliveries of missiles to the mentioned air defense systems, which confirms the obvious problems with their (missiles) presence after the recent Russian air operation.

On the night of December 19, the air defense system in Kyiv, Kyiv and Nikolaev regions showed that there were critical difficulties in terms of intercepting Russian drones "Geranium-2". The UAVs hit the thermal power plants of the Ukrainian capital, the work of which was barely restored after previous attacks, and which, as the command of the Armed Forces of Ukraine had previously stated, "will be protected in a special way from air strikes." The result is a breakthrough of the air defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the north and south of Ukraine with the simultaneous defeat of several key energy infrastructure facilities and the air defense positions themselves (identified during previous strikes). Against this background, Ukrainian officials can say as much as they like that 69 out of 70 missiles were shot down and that the Russian Armed Forces are about to run out of missiles...

Comments

[Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov]

In this regard, the usual "blanks" did their job

***
- "Fooled" Svidomo ...
***

[Aaron Zawi]

And who counted? These calculations are not self-reassuring?

[Orange Bigg]

Self-soothing for whom? The Ukrainians themselves say that the critical state of their air defense, that the critical state of their energy, which resulted in the problems of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with logistics near Bakhmut.

.now, in order to detect low-flying cruise missiles and kamikaze drones, Ukro-anti-aircraft gunners anyway have to turn on the radar, which allows us to successfully utilize them with parallel-flying anti-radar missiles. The fact that combined strikes both on infrastructure facilities and on its air defense in the best way affect the reduction of the defense capability of the ukrovermacht, said Andrey Kovalchuk, commander of the OK "South" of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Pan Gauleiter of Russian Odessa. He complained that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are again experiencing an acute shortage of shells for artillery. Due to the lack of electricity, Ukrzaliznytsia ran out of schedule, which does not allow the logistics department to fully provide ammunition for the defenders of independence. one of the reasons for the “Bakhmut meat grinder”. But the situation in general can become critical if there is a total blackout. Then the real shell famine will come.

In the meantime, the operation of nuclear power plants allows us to maneuver capacities in favor of the independent army - naturally, to the detriment of the hulks. “The margin of safety of critical infrastructure is at the limit, power engineers do not have time to repair substations, which is why they declared an emergency situation in the energy system of Ukraine,” wrote a telegram channel popular in Nenko, citing an insider from Ukrenergo. In short, everyone in Square is preparing for the Russian strike on substations of nuclear power plants, which, according to the British MI-6, will happen before the start of the new year. There is no doubt that almost all air defense air defense systems are pulled up to the distributors, which will have to turn on their radars in order to fend off the consequences of the arrival.

https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/355948/

[tihonmarine]

Quote: Aron Zaavi

And who counted? These calculations are not self-reassuring?

As always, everyone counts in their favor, but no matter how you count, enough arrives.

[gurzuf]

The US space agency NASA has published a satellite image of the Earth, which shows the absence of light in Ukraine after Russian strikes on December 16. These guys from NASA did the math.

[Mikhail Ivanov]

Apparently, it was also in the dark?)
What is the point of counting something, it is necessary to knock out their air defense to the maximum and start a normal offensive after air raids and the use of heavy bombs

[gurzuf]

What does it mean - "what's the point of counting something"? This is called situational analysis. And without an analysis of the situation today, fleas are not removed from dogs.

[Argon]

I can't understand the logic. If a blank can fly and fly, then why not supply warheads. Is it really that much different in price? Although yes. If it flies without a "cargo" for sure the disc will be cheaper. Who is in the know?

[Elephant]

The difference is minuscule. It was also possible to develop a firing b / h (preferably a cassette) when an enemy anti-aircraft missile approaches

[Goto]

This is necessary so that what flies somehow knows about the approach, and this is expensive. But separable parts it should be.

[gsev]

Quote: Argon

I can't understand the logic. If a blank can fly and fly, then why not supply warheads.

An anti-aircraft missile strikes with fragments during the explosion, which can undermine warheads. Fragments can destroy a blank as much as they like, but after fragmentation hits it will continue its flight. For this, it is possible to purchase SCADs with an expired shelf life from Iran (our diplomats seem unable to agree with the DPRK and the PRC) and use them against large targets such as oil refineries or chemical plants, provoking the Armed Forces of Ukraine to spend air defense systems. However, if Russia is not able to put more drones and precision-guided munitions in its troops than NATO in the Armed Forces of Ukraine, then Putin is unlikely to win without the use of nuclear weapons.

[Argon]

Many times I wrote here why it is impossible to launch scuds and points for distraction. Either their eur is clearly noticeable, or we don’t have them from the word at all. But they shoot with what they shoot.

[strelec69]

And what is the range of the warehouse and points do you know? No more than 120 km, and this is very little.

[Argon]

Crap. Didn't think to look at TTX. I know they shot in Chechnya. Scuds from the Caspian and Ossetia were launched. But there in the butt 100-150 km probably

[Micha456]

one fragment in the warhead or three fragments in the body is guaranteed to put the rocket out of action)) I went through this in the army, I even have notes left.

[gsev]

Quote: Micha456

one fragment in the head part or three fragments in the body is guaranteed to disable the rocket

If all the fuel burned out, then until the fragments tore the hull to shreds, it will continue to fly, changing direction and speed according to the law of conservation of momentum and energy in accordance with the mass, direction and speed of the fragments and the pierced hull. Although, of course, a rocket with a blank instead of a charge is a solution from hopelessness. it makes sense for her to shoot if the enemy’s anti-aircraft weapons hit your missiles with a probability of more than 50% and it is in depth and has the ability to destroy with the installations of the last echelons what the advanced ones missed ..

[Micha456]

they use cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles.

[Podvodnik]

. one fragment in the head part or three fragments in the body is guaranteed to disable the rocket

This is not true. According to TU, the combat charging compartment must withstand lumbago. It explodes only when the initiating explosive fuse is detonated. Therefore, there is difficulty in shooting down the Point, for example. Well, the SAM hit, well, it pierced with fragments. So what? Never mind! She flies like a boulder weighing over a ton. What will shrapnel do to her? holes? It flies by inertia to the designated point as a massive object. May slightly change the trajectory, but if the detonation chains are intact, the Point will work. Unfortunately.
Don't believe? Imagine you "knock down" a KamAZ loaded with gravel with an ordinary Oka. What will happen? Right. Announcement on Avito: "KamAZ for sale, front left wheel dirty"

[Micha456]

if the same flying eye flies into a KAMAZ flying in the air, then your KAMAZ will be tryndets (flew off) )) and in the head part of the missiles there is a guidance system, there was no talk of undermining the warhead, except for all the wires there in the body there is a fuel checker that does not like not only violating its integrity, but even just not a snug fit to the walls of the channel in which it located, so it won’t fly far and for a long time)) with old liquid rockets, everything is much worse. a colander rocket stubbornly breaking through air defense is very interesting.

[Podvodnik]

. a fuel checker that does not like not only violations of its integrity, but

This is understandable, a capricious thing - the mode of burning checkers. Even a crack, and that is a problem. But the burning of these checkers occurs at the starting ascending stage. Therefore, I drew attention to the difficulties in shooting down ballistic targets-Points, for example. And she, with burned-out drafts, does not care about breaking through the engine. He doesn't work. And if, as I noted, the detonation chains are not damaged, then the Point will still explode and deal damage. Even if she got knocked down. The same applies to Scuds, which many commentators have paid attention to.

[Micha456]

and winged x-55s are used as blanks, not dots-y.

[Podvodnik]

. and used as blanks

Yes, what is available is simpler, then they are used. And thank God that there is something to use. And it is quite clear that ballistic missiles of the "Tochka" or "Scud" type are of little use for this. Because if they shoot at an object with cruise missiles, then false targets should imitate them.

[Oleg Ogorod]

The fact of the matter is that a long-range missile with a warhead, without it, costs almost the same. Explosives are not that expensive. Tse is not a nuclear bomb.
It is possible to tear the iron dome of the promised from Palestine with hailstones, everything is nearby.
But launching a rocket at 200-400 km, or even 800, from the Caspian, for example, is completely different.
A cruise missile is a complex product and expensive, shots from the fields of the Volgograd region roughly show how complex this contraption is. How many wires does it have.
But the boys here were told to throw their hats up, celebrate, and they celebrate.
We have already shot down Ukrainian planes, we are counting in the third round. And they keep flying. Even helicopters launch missiles in our direction without any problems and calmly fly back to themselves.
Fools do not read this resource in order to fool them here with such stupid delights.
It won’t work, they will only turn against the current government, for which such stupid idiots are drowning.
Although maybe it's artificial intelligence? And And Internet Research? Drone bots?

[KCA]

Kh-55 of all modifications were produced only with TYABCH, so that the charges could be removed for rearrangement on the Kh-102 or for disposal, or reloading, then the method of using the Kh-55, Kh-55SM as false targets makes sense

[Murakow]

In addition to the warhead, the entire guidance system can also be removed from the missile, conditionally setting the simplest inertial 40 years as obsolete with an accuracy of a kilometer radius from the target. Well, drain the excess kerosene.)

[Timur_kz]

Rather, the difference is in the electronics after all. I don’t think that a blank can definitely hit somewhere, but launching it towards the target is yes.

[Nycteaph]

And the difference is just very big, because the main cost is in the rocket, and the problem for our defense industry, in principle, is not a warhead, it's a guidance system, it's electronics, in such a blank you don't need a computer that directs the whole thing, you don't need a system control and maneuvering, as it was launched, it flies straight, it only needs a hull and an engine, that’s all, I don’t have data on the price, but just by logic I can assume that it costs about 80% cheaper.

[shikin]

Any control system is needed, otherwise it will not fly far, another question - perhaps simplified to the limit. But in any case, it must be a specially designed and produced ammunition - a "trick". Starting regular ones without warheads is a big stupidity, in my opinion.
And there are some doubts that such ammunition was produced earlier and in sufficient quantities.

[Andy_nsk]

And the difference is just very big, because the main cost is in the rocket, and the problem for our defense industry, in principle, is not a warhead, it's a guidance system, it's electronics, in such a blank you don't need a computer that directs the whole thing, you don't need a system control and maneuvering, as it was launched, it flies straight, it only needs a hull and an engine, that’s all, I don’t have data on the price, but just by logic I can assume that it costs about 80% cheaper.

I don't think so. Firstly, without electronics at all, after launch, the rocket will begin to tumble or fly in the wrong direction at all. Those. at least it should have an inertial guidance system (three accelerometers + three magnetometers + controller). If we add to it the GLONASS guidance system (a penny microcircuit + an antenna made in the form of tracks on a printed circuit board), we get a completely normal guidance system capable of hitting stationary targets with high accuracy. It remains to add TNT (for non-brothers, such goodness is not a pity) and a fuse - it turns out a completely full-fledged shock missile. The main cost will be TRD. Optical seeker and electronics with video signal transmission over long distances can be expensive elements - but their use is not necessary in cheap products, for example, they are not in Shaheda and Gerani, and they have piston engines.
Therefore, I think that the statements about missiles used as decoys are some kind of bullshit or disinformation. Maybe they launch training targets or launch vehicles for nuclear warheads (without warheads), but somehow I don’t see much point in this. It makes no sense to launch aerodynamic decoys, here ballistic missiles are used together with decoys, where the launch vehicle immediately pulls into orbit, along with multiple warheads, several decoys, which are much lighter, but have an equal RCS.

[SergeyB]

Quote from Andy_nsk

Therefore, I think that in statements about missiles used as decoys, some kind of bullshit or disinformation. Maybe they launch training targets or or launch vehicles for nuclear warheads (without warheads), but somehow I don’t see much point in this.

Most likely, very ancient Soviet missiles were used as tricks. With an accuracy of plus / minus a couple of kilometers. When equipping such a missile with a nuclear part, the accuracy is acceptable. With conventional explosives, such a missile is practically useless.
So by using these missiles as decoys, we get the following benefits:
We are forcing Ukrainian air defense to spend expensive missiles.
Making it easier for real rockets to break through.
We save on the disposal of ancient rocket junk.
And we don’t supply decoys with a warhead, because due to disgusting accuracy and general decrepitude, this rocket can fall anywhere. Including the peacekeepers. And we avoid it.

[Andy_nsk]

Well, it's quite possible. Some discharged Point-y.

[SergeyB]

Quote from Andy_nsk

Well, it's quite possible. Some discharged Point-y.

May be. Although a range of 70 km prevents the Point from being a good snag.
But the X 22 (developed since 1958) of an early modification, with a range of 600 km, is much better suited.

[Vikxnumx]

And the difference is just very big, because the main cost is in the rocket, and the problem for our defense industry, in principle, is not a warhead, it's a guidance system, it's electronics, in such a blank you don't need a computer that directs the whole thing, you don't need a system control and maneuvering, as it was launched, it flies straight, it only needs a hull and an engine, that’s all, I don’t have data on the price, but just by logic I can assume that it costs about 80% cheaper.

Yes, there is practically no difference either in price or in filling, except for warheads. Targets for air defense firing are made from the same missiles.

[dementor873]

I don’t remember where the first raids from the ukrov were, they also first filled the canals with hail, and then the himars and dot-y followed.

[Andy_nsk]

I don’t remember where the first raids from the ukrov were, they also first filled the canals with hail, and then the himars and dot-y followed.

I read that the Hymers were launched together with Tochki-u during the shelling of the Antonovsky Bridge in order to overload the air defense system. I think that it is problematic to confuse Grad and Hymers missiles, an experienced operator or guidance officer will immediately see the differences, and their range is very different. And it’s hard to call the Point a false target, if it hits, it won’t seem enough!

[Grandfather Luka]

Quote: Argon

I can't understand the logic. If a blank can fly and fly, then why not supply warheads. Is it really that much different in price? Although yes. If it flies without a "cargo" for sure the disc will be cheaper. Who is in the know?

I don’t understand either: explosives in a rocket are perhaps the most inexpensive thing there is. Without a warhead, it’s still a rocket with all its systems, and not a blank. I don’t see where our Ukrainians were cheated.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Logically, inexpensive means should be used as "tricks". It is clear that in such "tricks" there are some control systems.
And the logic is that the enemy spends an expensive air defense missile on a "trick", and not shoot down a combat missile + overload the enemy's air defense systems.
It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as a "decoy".

[ilya.muromczev2013]

The difference is BIG, at times. In addition to the warhead, there is actually no electronic warfare, no guidance and communication systems, (figuratively speaking) no expensive "electronics" - on-board control equipment. And less fuel is needed (because the weight of the "blank" is much less than the "original"). For her, the main thing is not accuracy, but to fly "to that steppe" :) And to destroy such a "blank", horses spend 2 missiles, each costing hundreds of thousands of dollars ...

[Zoer]

Quote: ilya.muromczev2013

The difference is BIG, at times.

Yes, many times...

Quote: ilya.muromczev2013

am actually no electronic warfare

EW? In a cruise missile? Oh well...

Quote: ilya.muromczev2013

no guidance and communication systems, (figuratively speaking) no expensive "electronics" - on-board control equipment.

And how then does this blank fly along the route? Or is it like they fired from the Grad and that's it? At least an autopilot with all personal belongings is available.

Quote: ilya.muromczev2013

And less fuel

From the savings, 100 liters. kerosene. You can really be amazed.
In this blank, only the seeker and explosives with a fuse are missing. This is less than 1/3 of the cost of the entire rocket. Money down the drain. It is more efficient to launch a full-fledged missile, with built-in missile defense bypass maneuvers. Even if one of the 3 FULL missiles breaks through, and the probability of this is not small, the effect will be incomparably higher. In addition to depleting the enemy's air defense, there will also be destruction of the target.

[Alexander Salenko]

The same question, the price of a rocket is about the same.

[Zoer]

Quote: Argon

Who is in the know?

Well, let's figure it out together...
In any case, the rocket blank will contain:
1. Engine (one of the most expensive units.)
2. Tank and power system, for cruise missiles only. For ballistic missiles with solid propellant rocket engines, a fuel cartridge, which is also not very cheap.
3. Control system, i.e. autopilot.
4. The whole body, with all fairings, tanks, planes and control actuators.
Will not be installed on a blank:
1. Homing head. Not a cheap system, but not more expensive than an engine.
2. Warhead - i.e. the explosive itself and the fuse.
Now estimate the estimate... It is obvious that more than half of the systems and components are present in the disc. In terms of cost, I think at least 2/3 of the cost of a full-fledged rocket.
It also seems to me that the term itself, a blank rocket, is pure idiocy.

[your1970]

Quote: Zoer

Will not be installed on a blank:
1. Homing head. Not a cheap system, but not more expensive than an engine.
2. Warhead - i.e. the explosive itself and the fuse.
Now make a guess...

Everything is much easier -
the target missile is simply more resistant to damage from detonation of missiles, since there is no significant weight of explosives, which makes it conditionally stronger. the probability of its destruction is much lower than the standard one and requires more missiles

[Zoer]

Quote: your1970

Everything is much easier -
target missile

Ok, name at least one target missile of the Russian Federation, except for Reis and Strizh (by the way, they are never cheap and ancient) with a range of more than 300 km?

[your1970]

Quote: Zoer

Quote: your1970

Everything is much easier -
target missile

Ok, name at least one target missile of the Russian Federation, except for Reis and Strizh (by the way, they are never cheap and ancient) with a range of more than 300 km?

Persuaded. Generals sit in the evenings after service and pick out explosives from rockets. Otherwise, it’s not good, it suddenly explodes ....

[Zoer]

Quote: your1970

Persuaded. Generals sit in the evenings after service and pick out explosives from rockets. Otherwise, it’s not good, it suddenly explodes ....

Everything is much easier. The violent fantasy of the author, plus huge orders for help in the media, and voila, cheap wunderwaffles put down the entire UKRPVO. Well, the fact that already 10 times in a row, and everything is exceptionally complete, does not bother anyone, even though our planes are falling there ...

[trenkkvaz]

The warhead gives the main weight to the rocket.
That is, for a long distance you will need both fuel and a powerful engine.
So it already turns out a full-fledged expensive rocket.
Without warheads, this is a light blank in which, according to the idea, the engine can be abandoned and it will fly by inertia, having received speed from the aircraft.

[Zoer]

Quote: trenkkvaz

Without warheads, this is a light blank in which, according to the idea, the engine can be abandoned and it will fly by inertia, having received speed from the aircraft.

Well, launch balloons from an airplane, they are even lighter, they will fly to the USA by inertia.

[seregatara1969]

For some reason, the target missiles in the article were called blanks! Even in the USSR there were many such missiles! The target is essentially a motor with a fuel tank. It flies strictly along the course, diverting air defense to itself

[Zoer]

Quote: seregatara1969

For some reason, the target missiles in the article were called blanks! Even in the USSR there were many such missiles! The target is essentially a motor with a fuel tank. It flies strictly along the course, diverting air defense to itself

The whole sadness of target missiles is that they do not fly further than 100 km. And with a low-profile flight, emitting a CD and even a couple of tens of kilometers.

[Sergei N 58912062]

UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant"

[Zoer]

Quote: Sergei N 58912062

UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant"

Can you tell me the year of adoption?
Spoiler:
2021 was scheduled to complete the ROC on this topic. In 2022, only hand it over for testing.
More options will be?

[28st region]

In this regard, the usual “blanks”, “tricks” - aviation ammunition without a warhead did their job.

Journalistic move. They come up with something. The warhead is the cheapest part in a UAV.

[Podvodnik]

. If it flies without a "cargo" for sure the disc will be cheaper. Who is in the know?

There are no blanks without a warhead in nature. The finished product is assembled at the factory and disassembly is strictly prohibited and not provided. If there is a warhead in a cruise missile, no one will take it out.
Modern CD is a high-tech product. This applies to all its parts, including fasteners. Everything is calculated, weighed and densely packed, ready to use.
There are special target missiles. They imitate military products, do not have warheads. These are educational items. These can be accessed and programmed by trained personnel. Probably these were loaded with enemy air defense.
The phrase "blanks without warheads" is most likely a gag of representatives of the mass media. No one will allow anyone to remake military products. Not only are they not cheap, but the work will cost hellish money.

[Argon]

Your answer is more logical and credible.

[Sergei N 58912062]

I agree with you! It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as "decoys".

[CTABEP]

Yes, the difference there is a penny. The only option (if it's just not misinformation) is to let the missiles designed to equip special warheads, but if that's really the case, it's very sad.

[SergeyB]

Quote: Argon

I can't understand the logic. If a blank can fly and fly, then why not supply warheads. Is it really that much different in price? Although yes. If it flies without a "cargo" for sure the disc will be cheaper. Who is in the know?

Most likely, very ancient Soviet missiles were used as tricks. With an accuracy of plus / minus a couple of kilometers. When equipping such a missile with a nuclear part, the accuracy is acceptable. With conventional explosives, such a missile is practically useless.
So by using these missiles as decoys, we get the following benefits:
We are forcing Ukrainian air defense to spend expensive missiles.
Making it easier for real rockets to break through.
We save on the disposal of ancient rocket junk.
And we don’t supply decoys with a warhead, because due to disgusting accuracy and general decrepitude, this rocket can fall anywhere. Including the peacekeepers. And we avoid it.

[Sergei N 58912062]

I agree with you! It is quite possible that ancient Soviet missiles were used as "decoys". Or UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant".

[Sergei N 58912062]

Argon logic is that the enemy wasted his expensive anti-aircraft missiles on a relatively cheap simulator missile.
It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as "decoys". Or other target missiles. Such as the air target "Tribute" M or air target E95M.

[svoroponov]

20-30 percent of the cost. Housing - engine - fuel.
True, here the air defense specialist suggested that there could be anti-radar, long-range missiles
That is, the ability of missiles to detect radar radiation and bypass this area has been turned into the ability to turn on the radiation source to hit. this station. Data on frequencies are stitched into the brains or are set by reprogramming. Thus, missiles can go sequentially: a target, a missile with additional guidance on the radar, and then the main one. If no radiation is detected, the missile with additional guidance goes to the specified initial coordinates.
It is difficult to say something about target missiles. There are targets that are more expensive than conventional missiles or comparable in cost. But you are right, most likely old stocks.

[Letun]

Quote: Vladimir Vladimirovich Vorontsov

Svidomo "fooled" ...

It is you who are being fooled by this article. A cruise missile is a full-fledged jet aircraft with a low resource engine. And what can be saved there on the absence of a warhead, the gray mass, for which such articles are designed, will not be thought about. "Hooray! We fooled the stupid x-chlov again!"

[Sergei N 58912062]

It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as "decoys".

[svoroponov]

There, in addition to the combat mass, there is a very complex and expensive electronic and electronic-mechanical filling. Imagine a computer - how much does a case with a power supply cost and how much everything else. Here it is the same. The Obmanka has the same control unit, but it is very primitive for today.

[al3x]

Using blanks is good. Why hasn't this tactic been used before? As if they had made a discovery that it was possible. Unclear. I would like to believe about 80 percent, but somehow I don’t really believe that one blow took 4/5 of the arsenal of this system

[Cananecat]

Quote: al3x

I would like to believe about 80 percent, but somehow I don’t really believe that one blow took 4/5 of the arsenal of this system

Here it is necessary to look not how much is left, but how many illumination and guidance radars were destroyed in a certain direction. And how is this connected with the forthcoming activation in different directions.
All these calculations are averaged if missile defense launches were tracked.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: al3x

Why hasn't this tactic been used before? As if they had made a discovery that it was possible.

Here are a lot of things that happened before, from tactics to technology, they have not been used since the beginning of the NWO, I am glad that they have taken it at least now. Not even a year has passed.

[Bolt cutter]

one hit took 4/5 of the arsenal of this system

2-3 missiles for each target - and there are no missiles. They shoot ukry with other people's missiles to their heart's content, it's not a pity, they will still give it.

[hagen]

Quote: al3x

Why hasn't this tactic been used before?

Air defense overload reception has been known since the advent of missiles and radio-controlled target missiles. Those. still years since the fifties. It is used by everyone who considers it appropriate and possible. There are a lot of tactical methods for overcoming air defense, and it is not at all necessary to crackle about them all from the pages of the media. So don't worry, missile attacks on targets are planned by people who are aware of enemy air defense systems and how to deceive them. One of the features of recent wars is that they take place almost in an on-line format, and each viewer fancies himself a great commander, not understanding his own limitations in the highly specialized issues that he seeks to discuss ...

[Timur_kz]

Each viewer simply sees the specific result of the actions of the army for ten months. And blanks, as a way to deceive air defense, were announced only recently. Well, the assertion that there are professionals in the headquarters who know what and how to do is ridiculous, after everything that we have observed during the NWO.

[hagen]

Quote: Timur_kz

Well, the assertion that there are professionals in the headquarters who know what and how to do is ridiculous, after everything that we have observed during the NWO.

It is ridiculous that you draw conclusions from what you see on TV, and not at headquarters over a map of at least a brigade or division. It is ridiculous when people who have not been entrusted with a serious team of janitors begin to talk about the correctness of the movement of army groups. However, it doesn't do much harm. For a thinking person will understand this nonsense and will not take it seriously, but a stupid person does not affect anything, except that he “cuts himself” outside the schedule or quarrels with his wife ...

[Sergei N 58912062]

Timur_kz Well, show me a concrete result! To begin with, with my personal participation in the NWO. And everyone can sit at home on the couch and give "expert" assessments.

[svoroponov]

What is better - to put in 100000 thousand and take it in a month, or to put in 1000 but take it in a year. Ours work according to the second option, and yours according to what?

[Rome]

The MO needs to spread less about "military tricks"! Despite the fact that they are elementary, there is more to do!
And the word "zeroing" does not look appropriate, because. implies the destruction of something, and in the case of Iris T, we didn’t destroy anything, the Armed Forces of Ukraine simply spent missiles and that’s it, it was necessary to write “expenditure of missiles”. (Still found something to complain about ).

[svoroponov]

If such a number of IRIS missiles are used and the radius of destruction of the installation is limited and there are not many installations, then it is not worth talking about the effectiveness of these installations. In Kyiv, rockets of this installation flew into residential buildings. Residents from apartments destroyed by rockets showed photos of the wreckage of these rockets. And there was also a video, the Ukrainians themselves posted, where 4 missiles were fired into the sky with their self-destruction without the presence of any targets there. They probably reported about the downing. This is how legends about Ukrainian air defense and the number of "downed" targets are born.

[Amin_vivec]

This is an old technique used by both sides since the beginning of the conflict, why are they talking about it now - you need to think about it.
The Armed Forces of Ukraine does the same, a hail package is issued, followed by a Hymars. Air defense works on NURSs, and "Hymars" does its job and hits the target accurately.

[ilya.muromczev2013]

What is "one punch"? There were several blows ... And what do you "do not believe" if the horses themselves admit it? Yes, even if they don’t admit: how can they know whether it’s a blank or not - air defense still works on purpose. Another thing is that they can also use this tactic (they now have unlimited funds) ...
And what was not used before - the air defense of the horses was actually destroyed in the first 2 - 3 months. It is now that "the whole civilized world" has begun to supply them with both air defense and helicopter aircraft, as if in an abyss ...

[Vyacheslav p]

Hey, well done!!! Pleased!!! Keep it up!!!

[Grandfather Mozai]

It took almost a year to start fighting smart. If dad still decides, go to the light ...

[HAM]

Most likely, this "information" about "tricks" has just reached the journalists, well, who would shine these tricks and why, but now there was a "knowledgeable" of all that ...

[Rage66]

Information about snags passed about 2 months ago.
Then the Svidomites wrote that the Russians had run out of explosives. And now it's over again

[Lt. Air Force stock]

X-55 is apparently used without warheads. They were previously used to deliver nuclear weapons, but now they have been replaced by the Kh-102.

[voyaka uh]

I think so too.
These X-55s should already be scrapped.
They were used as bait targets. It is reasonable.

[wladimirjankov]

what is rationality? using a full-fledged x-55 without a warhead is just utter nonsense. This is an expensive CR, and if the YAG was removed from it, but a high-explosive or volumetric charge must be used. there is no justification for using it as an empty blank.

[voyaka uh]

"but you need to use a high-explosive or space charge" ///
---
In the open press, it flashed that replacing the Kh-55 with a high-explosive warhead is a technically difficult problem. In this rocket was not conceived such versatility.

[Osipov9391]

What is reasonable here?
Penny drones, yes. It is reasonable to use for such a purpose.
And to use a cruise missile for nothing that can carry a conventional / nuclear charge and hit a real target is utter nonsense.
It shows the strongest lag in the field of UAVs and electronics.

And such missiles as the Kh-55, even when decommissioned, find their use in the form of targets
for training air defense crews and fighter pilots to defeat such targets.

[Vic Vic]

Interestingly, what is the share of the cost of a warhead missile from the cost of the missile itself?
Have we saved the cost of warheads? Or, in addition to the lack of warheads, was the missile itself without warheads some kind of inferior missile?
If, in addition to the absence of warheads, the missile itself is just an unguided pipe flying over the enemy until it falls down if it is not shot down, then this is useful.

[al3x]

Lt. Air Force stock
Today, 17: 02
0
X-55 is apparently used without warheads. They were previously used to deliver nuclear weapons, now they have been replaced by X-102

The accuracy is not the same, apparently, to remake from a special charge to a conventional explosive, possibly more related difficulties, specialists can tell

[Rustic]

What's wrong with precision? The rocket will not fly towards the ukrofascists? At least some kind of cheap land mine could be crammed in there. They shot down, well, they didn’t shoot down, so at least a few Bandera people will die. Again this Stannaya Military Operation. Haven't they started handing out blank cartridges to the fighters yet? Well, what if the Nazis get scared and run away, dropping their weapons.

[Sergey Valov]

The cost of a non-nuclear warhead is cheap. Really well worth the engine and guidance system. So a false target may not be cheap at all. By the way, an experienced radar operator can tell a lot about a flying object by the mark on the screen, and he can easily distinguish the KR from Geranium. But the “smart” decoy, on which the warhead is replaced by a jammer, or some other tricky contraption, is a very useful and dangerous thing.
"pipe without guidance" is NURS without warheads.

[svoroponov]

If the target is low-flying high-speed, then an experienced operator will not have time to say anything. The time for combat work is very limited.

[Osipov9391]

I think that there are at least fundamental differences.
Such a dummy missile can be converted into a high-explosive one and hit a real target with it.
Once there is an engine, body and everything else.
Just upgrade the electronics. The cost of a high-explosive head is no more than 5-7% of the cost of a rocket.

[Damir Shamaev]

I thought that the most expensive thing in a rocket is anything, but not an explosive, the Ukrainians are again chasing

[Vashek]

I do not understand. In a rocket warhead (normal) is not the most expensive part. The guidance system is more expensive. Launching missiles just like that without warheads is an incomprehensible waste. there are no extras. Some nonsense. Letting Geraniums in is understandable, but missiles?

[-Paul-]

And if this is a former missile with a special warhead ?!

[Osipov9391]

In any case, such a missile can be used as a high-explosive one and hit a real target.
For example, to process the fortified areas of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Donbass.
10 months. Donetsk under wild shelling every day! This is amazing.

[Sebostyuan]

In order for it to be high-explosive and hit right on target, a different guidance system is needed. Since the X-55 is not very accurate. As long as I remember. And the new warhead + new guidance system is a new missile. So, the option of using it as a means of deceiving air defense is a completely economic approach.

[Osipov9391]

The guidance system for all these missiles is the same - INS + radio altimeter. In modern versions, a board with GLONASS is also supplemented.
Everything is controlled by autopilot. It's very easy to work it out.

[Sebostyuan]

Why dorobatyt, if it can be launched anyway? Maybe there is a delay, in all respects. Not for nothing, as they write. Something fell in the Vladimir region.

[Vashek]

Here, as in the KGB, there are no former and there is no superfluous.

[Rustic]

I do not understand.

And what is not clear here. This is pure betrayal. Again, someone in the Kremlin is fighting for fun, and ordinary people are paying for it with their lives for real.

[Mihail0221]

Russian decoy ammunition, imitating full-fledged missiles, made it possible to use up to 80 percent of the stocks of IRIS-T missiles supplied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine as an additional arsenal after the previous "zeroing".

prodigies did not justify themselves

[acetophenone]

As usual, someone is lying. Either television generals or gifted journalists.

[navigator777]

If there are several hundred or thousands of x-55s lying around in the warehouses, then they are most likely used as decoys, the same can be done with the old x-22s

[Osipov9391]

That's not how they do it!
This is too expensive and scarce weapon capable of being used for its intended purpose - to hit the target with a nuclear or conventional charge.
And damage the enemy.
Using them as a means of depleting air defense is a demonstration of a wild lag in the field of UAVs, electronics, electronic warfare and RTR aircraft.
It is not in Russia!

[Sergei N 58912062]

It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as "decoys".

[Architect]

About 80%, I hope not the representative of the RF Ministry of Defense said?

[Cat Alexandrovich]

Also, like many who commented, I don’t understand why pick out tol from the rocket? Suddenly, it’s precisely her who won’t be shot down? So she will fall into dill! A strange story with these "tricks", it seems that it's so easy to fool the enemy's brains.

[certero]

The meaning of the use of blanks eludes me. Explain, please? What difference does it make with the warhead whether a rocket flies or not, the rocket is still wasted.
The generally accepted means of breaking through an air defense system is either to suppress this very system with the help of electronic warfare and destroy the station, or to overload the air defense capabilities by a massive strike.
And are there any cheats?

[Amin_vivec]

I am not an expert, but in my understanding, a "blank" is a conditional penny "NURS from Grad", which, due to the lack of a warhead, has a "simulation part" that allows it to increase its EPR and shine on radars like "Caliber" or something more expensive.
By the way, it becomes possible to fire at objects protected by air defense and hitting which missiles with a normal warhead is fraught ... For example, residential areas of cities ...
Only then does it make sense...
If this is not so, then there is no point in removing warheads.

[Timur_kz]

Will such a nurse fly to Odessa? The problem is the distance. Apparently, the old CDs are still used.

[Amin_vivec]

They are different NURS, from "Typhoon" for example, or from "Hurricane" ... they will have a higher range.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Well, if you are not an expert, then what are you talking about here?

[Sergei N 58912062]

Turn on your brains, if, of course, you have them in your head, and then, perhaps, you will understand the meaning of using blanks.

[certero]

Quote: Sergei N 58912062

Turn on your brains, if they are in your head

I'm waiting for an explanation from having brains, what is the point of using blanks?
It’s even interesting, do you know how to put sentences together in order to explain something, or do you only know how to be rude?

[Podvodnik]

. What difference does it make with the warhead whether a rocket flies or not, the rocket is still wasted.

Quite right. No one will pick anything out of combat CDs. The phrase about blanks without warheads is an invention of the mass media.

[wladimirjankov]

I would still like to know, if it's not a secret, what was used as "rocket blanks"? Really x-55? If so, then I have no words, only emotions.

[Hey]

I would still like to know, if it's not a secret, what was used as "rocket blanks"? Really x-55? If so, then I have no words, only emotions.

[Osipov9391]

Yes, it looks like it. And probably the X-101 is also used this way.
I'm not saying that the precious resource of strategic aviation is wasted, which for such use makes a raid in several hours!
But real targets are not affected.
What a wildness.

[Comet]

Quote: Osipov9391

Yes, it looks like it. And probably the X-101 is also used this way.
I'm not saying that the precious resource of strategic aviation is wasted, which for such use makes a raid in several hours!
But real targets are not affected.
What a wildness.

Everything is not as you imagine.

[Timur_kz]

But as? Apart from geraniums, we no longer have cheap means of delivery to the depths of Ukraine. Nurses will not reach. Remain CR.

[Comet]

Quote: Timur_kz

But as? Apart from geraniums, we no longer have cheap means of delivery to the depths of Ukraine. Nurses will not reach. Remain CR.

Instead of explosives, electronic brains are put. Well, and a little bit of explosives for self-destruction after the end of work.

[Oleg Ogorod]

In 1999, Ukraine transferred to Russia 575 X-55 and X-55SM missiles as payment for the supply of natural gas.

[Sergei N 58912062]

It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as "decoys".

[Arkady007]

Explain what is a snag rocket?
If this is an UAV, then I don’t see much difference with or without warheads.
The basis of a guided missile is the ECU (brains) that control it during flight. These brains don’t care what they send and their cost does not depend on the weight of the warhead.
Where then is the essence of deception?

[Sergei N 58912062]

Turn on your brains, if, of course, they are in your head, then perhaps you will understand the essence.

[Carlos Hall]

A very smart move. People who show initiative and achieve good results with their ideas should be rewarded.

[Osipov9391]

What is this smart move?
Let's say 50 missiles were spent for this.
Actually wasted!
This means that 50 targets on enemy territory or on the territory of NATO countries will no longer be hit!
I can imagine how American generals laugh when they receive reports from intelligence about such things.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Where do you get these "experts" from?

[Petio]

The nuclear version of the X-55 has guidance with an accuracy of 50-100 meters, which is quite enough for a nuclear warhead. But in order to use it with a high-explosive warhead, it is necessary to refine the guidance systems like on the X-555 with an accuracy of 15-20 meters.

[Osipov9391]

Well, the INS and the radio altimeter on these missiles should all be the same.
It's just that in a more accurate conventional version, a board with GLONASS should be installed, perhaps the ACS is being improved.
All this is not difficult to do.

[Nikolaevich I]

The use of "false targets"? It is high time ! But is it worth talking about "blanks without explosives"!? "One of the main" is the desirable cheapness of decoys! That is why false targets can be launched, for example, on the basis of "Geran-2"; but using only a glider, a "motor" and an INS as a guidance system ... that is, without satellite guidance, without seeker! (To make it cheaper!) Of course, without warheads (because the accuracy with a more simplified, cheap guidance system will be lower; it is undesirable to hit "on the population" ...); but it is possible with a container with chaff (heat traps), which should be thrown out at the signal of a radar sensor ... In general ... on the basis of Geranium-2, several modifications of various functional purposes can be made! So you get a multifunctional swarm!

[Sergei N 58912062]

Do you think that there are fools sitting there? I'm sure that everything you wrote about is used.

[Nikolaevich I]

Your confidence is akin to the confidence of the Central Committee of the CPSU ...: "It is necessary to wipe the nose of the USA! Fly into the sun with the landing of the crew! But it is impossible to fly and land in the sun! What do you think fools are sitting in the Central Committee? Fly at night!"

[Osipov9391]

I just don't know how to comment on it.
Here is a drone with Ali for $ 9000 with which Ukraine hit the Novoshakhtinsk refinery in the summer.
One of the columns of the plant stood up for more than a month, the damage that this device caused was head and shoulders above its cost.
And such drones are available to anyone.
And in the hands of dedicated people who are friends with GPS and electronics, such a device can turn into a very serious weapon in terms of efficiency comparable to million-dollar European aviation cruise missiles.
Such a device can fly 250-300 km and deliver a dozen kilograms of explosives to the most sensitive objects.

Ukraine is already setting up production of similar drones with a range of 1000 km.

And we continue to spend missiles worth a million dollars each and burn through the resource of strategic aviation.
I don’t believe that it was impossible in Russia to organize the mass production of such devices, including for opening and distracting air defense.
The cost of a penny if without cutting and theft.
And hold back strategic CDs.

[Sergei N 58912062]

And what do you think Geranium-2 is used for? "smart ass"

[Boniface]

It's good that ours finally figured it out! I'm waiting for when they think of launching anti-radar missiles - according to the switched on air defense radars of the Pig Reich! Better yet, combine the attack with the overflights of our reconnaissance satellites - to reveal the full picture of air defense and land Geranka directly on the "emasculated" air defense systems

[Bodipancher]

Use. As a result of the last raid, four radars were opened and destroyed.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Do you think that there are fools sitting there? I am sure that everything you wrote about is being done.

[Bodipancher]

It seems that the same missiles from the S-300 that are constantly written about by the ukrosmi are used as tricks.

[km-21]

What about the meaning? The warhead is not the most expensive part of the rocket. Its absence saves no more than 10% of the cost of the product. The main price of a high-precision missile is the electronic filling and the engine, which will be used up anyway. If the disc is knocked down, then a small saving is obtained. But if the blank still gets to the target, then the money will be spent in vain.

[Boniface]

Guys ! Who knows how long it takes to keep the radar (for example, the S-300) turned on “high” in order to detect a target, aim missiles? Average (time) ?

[Comet]

Quote: Boniface

UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant"

S-300PS. The time for additional search for a target by external target designation is 4 s. The time for preparing the missile defense system for launch is 15 s. Plus the flight time of the missile to the target.

[Boniface]

Plus the flight time of the missile to the target.

- And that the target is highlighted by the radar? Doesn't the rocket have its own, autonomous guidance system (the one that turns on after launch in the seeker)?

N yes! Finding such a radar from the territory of Belarus is somehow still possible - but "covering" is very problematic!

[Comet]

Quote: Boniface

Plus the flight time of the missile to the target.

- And that the target is highlighted by the radar?

In the middle section of the flight to the target, telecontrol of the 1st type is used according to the on-load tap-changer data. In the vicinity of the target, a transition to command guidance of the 2nd type is carried out - according to the data of the RPN and BR SAM. At the final stage - telecontrol of the 2nd type only according to the data of the BR SAM. The on-load tap-changer accompanies the target discretely constantly, and highlights only with TU-2.

Quote: Boniface

Doesn't the rocket have its own, autonomous guidance system (the one that turns on after launch in the seeker)?

Regardless of the presence of a seeker on board the SAM, the radar of any SAM accompanies the target and transmits correction commands to the SAM. The transition to homing is carried out when the accuracy of the data from the seeker begins to exceed the accuracy of the data from the radar, or 2-5 seconds before the meeting with the goal to increase noise immunity.

Quote: Boniface

N yes! Finding such a radar from the territory of Belarus is somehow still possible - but "covering" is very problematic!

If it will "shine" towards Belarus.

[Boniface]

If it will "shine" towards Belarus.

but after all, in the detection mode, the circular view of the radar is phoning "for the whole world"

[Comet]

Quote: Boniface

If it will "shine" towards Belarus.

but after all, in the detection mode, the circular view of the radar is phoning "for the whole world"

There may be a ban on radiation in selected sectors.

[air wolf]

I think that every sortie of our missiles is accompanied by reconnaissance aircraft, if this is not done, this is a mistake, and after the geranium attacks on a dive for 1-2 km, the engine must be turned off, it will fly by inertia and the probability of detection will decrease.

[savage3000]

Bolvanki???? What are pigs in the understanding of the author of the article ???

[Glagol1]

Shooting "blanks" of missiles is not cheap. The most expensive part of the rocket is the guidance head, gyroscopes, and electronics. This is at least 50%. Next is the engine. Next is the body. And the cheapest one is a warhead, it's just explosives and that's it. So firing a rocket - a blank is about the same as using self-propelled guns for mine clearance. Another propaganda, apparently, a lot of missiles were shot down, so something needs to be covered. But they covered it not smartly and clumsily. No blanks flew, but simply many missiles were shot down.

[Sergei N 58912062]

"No blanks flew, but just a lot of missiles were shot down." Where is the information from? Ukrainians directly report?

[Sergei N 58912062]

It is necessary to continue to beat out the energy infrastructure of Ukraine. It is necessary to hit the generating capacities. We need to bomb Ukraine into the Stone Age! To have no water, no light, no gas.

[Osipov9391]

No one will do this, because there are agreements with the Hungarians for the pumping of oil and gas through the territory of Ukraine, for which they pay money to Russia.
It is necessary to load grain in Odessa.
Then, there 3 nuclear power plants remain over the territories under their control.
In the event of a blackout of power units, a nuclear accident is possible, and not just one.
And in itself, the creation of such a factor is a reason for bringing NATO forces into Ukraine.
Under the guise of protecting nuclear power plants and other things.

[Sergei N 58912062]

So many "experts" have come running among the commentators who write that it is too expensive to use missiles without warheads as "tricks".
"gentlemen" how do you know that missiles without warheads were used as "tricks"? Were you personally informed about this?
It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as "decoys".

[Vrotkompot]

Comrade generals, after such a unique trap for the enemy, are you ready to board a plane and fly to Kuev while all air defense is discharged?

[Dismas]

What is the purpose of this flight? In the targeted bombing of Bankovaya by the generals?

[Vrotkompot]

The point is that generals receive false reports and medals, while ordinary pilots fly and die. Now, if after such reports they themselves boarded planes and flew, you see, they would lie less.

[AC130 Gunship]

I think that if there was a filling in the warehouse, then the blanks would not be launched. The plant produces the number of missiles in accordance with the number of warheads. It’s just that these blanks were produced for special products that are stored in warehouses ... And God forbid that they don’t get them out of there

[Beaver]

What kind of war is this? We explain each tactical trick to the enemy. This seems to be a new word in military cunning)

[Mikhail Kuzin]

How much do the pigs cost? What are pigs? Is it like a caliber or x100 is there somehow without a warhead? I think 400 kg of the warhead is worth nothing in comparison with the engine, control system, blank body. That is, they fired blank rockets that cost almost as much as with a warhead?

[Sergei N 58912062]

"Pigs" are missiles that imitate combat missiles or aircraft. They are designed to divert air defense systems from combat missiles or aircraft. Logically, their cost should be less than the cost of combat missiles or aircraft.
It is quite possible that UMTK 9F6021 "Adjutant" was used as a "decoy".

[Sergei N 58912062]

The "dear experts" who criticized the use of missile "dummy" without a warhead, but it didn't occur to you that target missiles could well have been used as "dummy" instead of combat missiles with the warhead removed. Such as the air target "Tribute" M or air target E95M. Before you write your comments, think with your head, not f***!

[garik77]

In the last war with the Armenians, the Azerbaijanis knocked out their air defense using the An-2 in an unmanned version as decoys. They launched an airplane, the radars immediately turned on and they were already hit with missiles. We probably also have a lot of all sorts of flying trash suitable for a similar application.

[AG-76]

They will also bring them missiles and everything else, replenish supplies, etc.
It is necessary to "reset" not the stocks of missiles, but radars and launchers.
And in general, it is necessary to "zero" the "help" itself and the supply routes

[Mikhail Ivanov]

Quote: gurzuf

What does it mean - "what's the point of counting something"? This is called situational analysis. And without an analysis of the situation today, fleas are not removed from dogs.

You have to count correctly! That is, having all the information, and not making calculations on PR actions of various structures. All these calculations and reports of the authorities have nothing to do with reality ...
And both with us and with them. Every official, including the military, covers his ass with chatter. As they once said about Lifenews, they come up with 30% of the missing news themselves)))