252

Ukraine used F-16s to repel Russia's mass missile attack, Zelensky confirms (kyivindependent.com)

submitted 3 months ago by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ukraine's Air Force used F-16 jets as part of its defense against Russia's mass missile and drone attack on Aug. 26, President Volodymyr Zelensky confirmed during a press conference on Aug. 27.

Russia targeted 15 of Ukraine's 24 oblasts on Aug. 26, launching over 200 missiles and drones as part of the largest-ever aerial attack against Ukraine.

. . .

F-16s gave "a very good result," Zelensky told reporters. "As part of this huge attack, we shot down some missiles and drones with the help of F-16s."

MBFC
Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I think anything short of a ballistic missile against a “near peer” IS outdated tech at this point,

I don't think that would be an opinion shared by many. Short range ballistic missiles are exactly that. Short range aka "tactical". One example of an operational US tactical ballistic missiles are ATACMS. These have a maximum range of about 300km. To get anything longer range that is a ballistic missile you go into "strategic" ballistic missiles. The problem with these is we use these for nuclear strikes. If you launch one of these, every country around the world will assume its nuclear armed and could respond in kind. There is no geopolitical concept of "Trust me bro, its just a conventional warhead".

The US loves its cruise missiles. Think about how extensively the Tomahawk cruise missile has been used over the last 2 decades.

but doing rough napkin math gives about an hour from launch to impact. I still suspect the f-16s were more about anti-drone operations but, reasonable.

Here's the results of the latest missile attack on Ukraine from a couple of days ago:

3 Kh-47M2 “Kinzhal” aeroballistic missiles from the airspace of the Ryazan and Lipetsk regions - Russian Federation;
6 ballistic missiles “Iskander-M” /KN -23 from the Kursk, Voronezh regions - Russian Federation. and from Crimea;
77 Kh-101 cruise missiles from Tu-95MS aircraft from the airspace of the Volgograd region and the Caspian Sea region;
28 Kalibr cruise missiles from surface/underwater carriers in the eastern part of the Black Sea;
3 Kh-22 cruise missiles from the airspace of the Voronezh region. - Russian Federation;
10 Kh-59/Kh-69 guided air missiles from Su-57, Su-34 aircraft from the airspace of the Belgorod region. and from the Mariupol district;
109 strike UAVs “Shahed-131/136” - launch areas of Primorsko-Akhtarsk, Kursk, Yeisk - Russian Federation, Chauda - Crimea.

Of those 236 weapons launched by russia, only 6 were ballistic missiles). 109 were prop driven UAV (drone). That leaves a whole bunch of cruise missiles and 3 hypersonic missiles.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

That is where the near peer aspect comes in.

The US LOVES cruise missiles because we, basically since Vietnam, have consistently gone up against groups with significantly lesser technology (often the stuff that even russia doesn't want anymore). It is the same logic behind how nightvision goggles used to provide an insurmountable advantage and are now basically normal kit against a near peer. Or how tanks were amazing for like... World War 1 and a few weeks of World War 2? And these days are ATGM magnets where a comparatively low cost infantry weapon can take out state of the art equipment.

And that is kind of what we have here. russia needed to launch 127 missiles to get 20 though. That is when you start doing the math on whether the significantly lower costs make it "worth it" relative to a short-ish range ballistic missile. Same with any other technology in war.

As for "if it is any bigger people will think it is a nuke". That is nonsense and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars). Unless there is irrefutable evidence that it is an ICBM going a couple hundred kilometers into Ukraine AND Zelensky et al can get on TV in time? "Oh no. Whoever could have seen this coming? Hey putin, this is your last warning".

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

That is where the near peer aspect comes in.

"near peer" to whom? The USA or Ukraine?

For Ukraine, russia IS near peer.

As for “if it is any bigger people will think it is a nuke”. That is nonsense and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars).

Who else besides nuclear powers do you know are operating a fleet of strategic ballistic missiles?

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

For Ukraine, russia IS near peer.

Yes? And, as a result, Russia had to fire off 127 missiles to get 20 through. Which raises the question of if this is even a good use of resources/funds/material. Not sure how you missed that when I said it above.

Who else besides nuclear powers do you know are operating a fleet of strategic ballistic missiles?

Powers that spend a lot of money buying those from those nuclear powers? So.. basically the same as it has been since the 1950s or so?

Again, you seem to have missed where I addressed this exact point. So I'll just repeat it

and mostly only applies when two nuclear powers are going up against each other which we already avoid for countless other reasons (yay proxy wars). Unless there is irrefutable evidence that it is an ICBM going a couple hundred kilometers into Ukraine AND Zelensky et al can get on TV in time? “Oh no. Whoever could have seen this coming? Hey putin, this is your last warning”.

But hey, maybe that was confusing. If Russia launches a bunch of non-nuclear ICBMs at the US? We probably already started World War 3 when Russia shot up Alaska or whatever happened during this apocalypse timeline.

If Russia fires a bunch of ICBMs at Ukraine? Common sense is that they aren't nuclear (because of how close they are) but it is in NATO's best interest to "wait and see" in the exact same way we did a wait and see when russia invaded Ukraine the past couple times. We only act if we have no other choice because nuclear powers engaging in direct war is already an endstate.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Not sure how you missed that when I said it above.

...and...

Again, you seem to have missed where I addressed this exact point. So I’ll just repeat it

Huh. I'm curious how effective this conversation style is with others you interact with, but not curious enough to continue. I think perhaps we have different levels of respect for one another. If anyone else is interested in continue this conversation, feel free to pick up where I'm leaving. Have a nice day.

[-] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip -3 points 3 months ago

I respect those who engage in a conversation.

I don't respect people who actively ignore that the person they are "responding" to already addressed the point because you can't get a "gotcha" any other way.

But hey, good talk... not really but.

this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024

252 points (98.5% liked)

World News

39129 readers

725 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.