Posted on 03/19/2023 1:42:56 PM PDT by Navy Patriot
Russia does not use hypersonic weapons in fact now, though it has them, same as other cutting-edge systems, President Vladimir Putin said in an interview for the "Moscow. Kremlin. Putin" program on Rossiya-1 TV channel published by journalist Pavel Zarubin on his Telegram channel on Sunday.
(Excerpt) Read more at tass.com ...
Sorry for the Russian tank crews, where some cold hearted sob in Russia makes that kind of a calculation.
British NLAWs cost $40K each.
Hypersonic weapons are merely fast weapons. There is no moral issue with them like a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon that kills indiscriminately. So Putin can use them in war and the world should have no issue with it. But they are also expensive weapons. So if you have a stockpile of old slow weapons and new fast ones. You will use the cheapest oldest weapons that get the job done. And lest NATO thinks that is all you got and decides to enter the war further, it may be prudent for Putin to let everyone know he is fighting with one hand tied behind his back. And he has far better weapons if anyone wants to test him.
LOL, Putin is "fighting with one hand tied behind his back". Right
Then again, as not mentioned by others, the speaker may be addressing an entirely different subject that others have little knowledge of.
“””Perhaps Putin is pulling T62s out of moth balls because they are cheaper than Javelin missiles and Putin has almost as many T62s as NATO has Javelins.”””
How does the cost of the trained tank crew figure into that theory?
You have a point there.
I believe almost anything takes out the T-62, even $2000 LAWs, some say even weaker weapons.
Losing trained crewmen is deadly and very costly militarily, and also politically.
I actually know something of some of these relevant things:
1) There is a clamor underway concerning providing F-16s to Ukraine. Well, the bad news is that is completely pointless. The APG66 is not going to be effective against drones with low radar cross section, which is what most of them have. The F-16 is non stealth. It is not in any way imaginable a game changer. It is largely inferior to Russian advanced Sukhoi aircraft.
The only reason for F-16 talk is to try to get US military personnel directly involved.
2) Hypersonic weapons exist, deployed, in the Russian inventory. The US has nothing equivalent. They are simply too fast to be defended against with any current anti missile systems. That attack on a training base in western Ukraine? It was a message. The Poland radar systems never saw it coming. That was the message.
3) You can largely forget all that. The prime threat we face from the Russians is their new Poseidon torpedo system. These are tested and deployed. They produce a nuclear blast far offshore, nowhere near a 12 mile border. They produce a tsunami that will destroy entire cities along the coast.
We would lose nearly all of our cities. The UK would be flooded entirely.
Russia has nearly no coastal cities. That’s how brilliant the design is.
The curiosity that I'm trying to decipher is why Putin intimated the few Hypersonic Missiles Russia has used are not Hypersonic?
Did he misspeak?
Did he not know they had been used?
Or does Russia have missiles so advanced that Putin considers the first generation hypersonics not Hypersonic?
If you expect NATO to be added to the chess board, you do "bring out your queen" early in the game.
“Why use the good stuff when traditional weapons suffice? Only morons like generals in the US military piss away tax dollars using smart weapons when dumb bombs would do the job at a fraction of the cost.”
It’s hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic. Many studies have indicated that few unguided bombs hit their target. Given the cost and danger required to fly a bomb close enough to hit a target the added and comparatively small cost of guidance is a huge advantage. Any given target requires fewer bombs, fewer missions and significantly less risk. Also, the explosive can be smaller so there is less collateral damage. The Israelis, for example, have taken out targets placed next to schools or apartments with no damage to the adjacent buildings. This eliminates the political risk of using unguided bombs. (If you were being sarcastic, I apologize.)
[Putin has almost as many T62s as NATO has Javelins.
A Russian T72 tank can be had for about $50K - a T62 is less.]
How much is a russian tank crew worth?
Those are the facts of the matter.
The curiosity is: Does Russia have even better Hypersonic Missiles/Systems that they have not used?
I understand your point. Please note that my statement was qualified with “when dumb bombs …”. There are certainly plenty of circumstances when using smart weapons are appropriate. I just like poking at the current military leadership.
The US has bolt on JDAM kits for dumb bombs, it would be unwise to assume the Russians have not advanced in bomb guidance and retrofit for their existing inventory, as they have advanced most everywhere else.
Nations have different philosophies about this.
Some nations value their combatants more than others.
Russia has a history of showing little valuation for their combatants.
That has been in the back of my mind for some time. This is how Russians think, too.
I believe bolt on JDAM kits are fairly inexpensive. At least the tech behind it is no longer extraordinary. Ultimately, it’s about choosing the correct weapon for the mission. A Hypersonic weapon’s strength lies in its ability to evade defense systems. If that’s not required, use cheap older stuff.
Agree.
I agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.