Why did the Russians use the new Hypersonic missile vs a lowly ammo dump?

[WarGamer]

I referenced this several days ago...

This escalation is a statement, a statement to the US and EU that 1) The weapons system indeed WORKS and 2) It's barely if at all detectable and 3) It's unstoppable.

That means... this weapons system, which is adaptable for conventional warhead applications, or nuclear warhead applications OR anti-ship applications.

Make no mistake.

A Russian bomber or submarine launches a handful of them and a US Carrier Group is on fire.

Putin is shaking a stick at the world saying "Stay out of Ukraine".

[Chainfire]

1. Maybe they are running low on more economical means of blowing things up.

[SoonerPride]

16. That was my thought.

They’re run low on cheaper missiles

[lagomorph777]

74. That's what Ambassador Taylor theorized.

[Shermann]

2. Agreed, but there's another ulterior motive

Warmongers love the opportunity to test their new weapons systems on live targets.

[WarGamer]

3. no doubt about that!!

Look back to shock n awe in 2003...

Shrub the Butcher tested all the new toys.

[JHB]

57. Oh, screw that! Go back to 1991

I didn't nickname it "Operation Desert Proving Ground" for nothing.

[TheRealNorth]

56. That would be my conclusion as well.

[rampartc]

59. +1 test seems reasonable.

[denbot]

4. Oooooo scary...

[Baked Potato]

5. Perhaps Russia saw your recent advice to move on Ukraine "HEAVY and HARD"

[WarGamer]

7. It wasn't advice... it was a prediction.

and don't forget, when you're analyzing military tactics and strategy... it's done without a good guy/bad guy filter.

[Baked Potato]

8. Really? Looks like a ghoulish lament at the least.

38. I'd add just poor strategy.

Since 1939 the world has known that the key to an invasion is the air war.

Today, with satellite intel and drones, even more so.

The Russians should have spent 2 weeks hitting ground targets before the first boot hit Ukrainian soil.

The Russians should have used air power to close off routes of re-supply from the NATO countries.

The Russians should have established air supremacy with SU-27's early. Fly CAP and kill anything with wings.

And then they should have moved HEAVY and HARD.



This will go down in history books as one of the greatest miscalculations in the history of warfare.



https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100216493067#post38

[WarGamer]

10. Ahh yes that post...

People who analyze war as a hobby...

We look at historical events.

We look at the Battle of Britain in 1940 and come up with the consensus that the Luftwaffe made a critical error by focusing on hitting civilian targets instead of focusing on the RAF.

It's not advice or cheerleading or anything else.

We look at wars and note mistakes.

Napoleon should have attacked the Duke of Wellington's troops at dawn.

Lee should have sought defensive positions after the first day at Gettysburg.

At Cannae, the Romans became undisciplined and over-advanced into Hannibal's mass of troops...


Understand? It's just cold analysis of warfare, no cheerleading or fanboying.

[BeyondGeography]

14. Vlad wanted a two-day waltz into Kyiv

with minimal fuss. That would have been the optimal political outcome.

It was insane of course, as is everything else connected with this invasion. Eg, thinking Ukraine can be intimidated and held through the type of tactics the OP seems enamored of.

[WarGamer]

17. "OP seems enamored with"... come on.

That's unfair.

I'm looking at this like others would look at their tomatoes growing during the summer, speculating what more or less sunlight or water would have changed the yield, color or flavor.

I'm broadly anti-war. I don't think war can be justified in ANY situation in the 21st Century.

[BeyondGeography]

21. It's terrible advice, pure and simple

Too heavy-handed even for Putin.

He wants to recover his empire with something resembling the consent of the conquered. He completely underestimated the Ukrainian will to resist. But he was right not to flatten the country for two weeks as you propose and at least try for the cleaner win for post-occupational purposes. Even he understood that.

[WarGamer]

23. Well, it wasn't advice... so there's that.

I don't think "advice" can ever refer to something in the PAST???

[BeyondGeography]

25. If "analysis" works better for you go with that nt

[WarGamer]

28. Advice is "sign Aaron Rodgers for 22/23", analysis is "You should have signed Julio Jones last year"

[Mariana]

30. It's very unfair.

I hope you'll continue to post your analyses and opinions. I enjoy reading them.

[WarGamer]

31. thanks, I truly appreciate it.

[ancianita]

33. I appreciate your OP, too. It's what we need more of around here.

[DashOneBravo]

79. Agreed

I read them too

[flying rabbit]

71. Some people are just looking for a beef.

Don't let the haters get to you.

[Baked Potato]

18. That, I agree with. Nt

[Sapient Donkey]

80. I fully support Ukraine and its ongoing decision to defend Ukraine from the Russian invasion

I too find myself discussing Russian (or any other country) tactics and strategy in a similar way. This is the same as with any other conflict being analyzed. In certain types of discussion, detaching and viewing things in a dispassionate manner is very useful at removing as many blinders and biases as possible. It's hard to do at times. I find it uncomfortable to do on forums like this because not everyone is able or willing to do that, and it can unintentionally offend some. I'm not familiar with WarGamer, but I give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to determining his intentions. Even more given his screen name.

[Mariana]

32. "And then they should have moved HEAVY and HARD."

In case you didn't realize it, this sentence references the past. Let's look at the definition of the word "advice" shall we?

Guidance or recommendations offered with regard to prudent future action.

Therefore, by definition, the poster did not give any advice, and it is dishonest for you to say that.

[Baked Potato]

38. Russia is still presently in Ukraine.

It’s natural to assume what someone says *should* have happened in the past to be advice on what should happen in the future.

In military parlance, that is an “After Action Report.” It is meant to steer actions in the future.

[OnDoutside]

6. Instill fear and terror ? The cruelty is the point.

[Lovie777]

9. I'm reading this has not been confirmed . .. .

[WarGamer]

11. US confirmed... CNN earlier today

[AntiFascist]

12. According to an expert interviewed on MSNBC...

Russia has very few of these in its inventory, so it was more of a 'publicity stunt'.
Perhaps this is what they asking China for help with, since China is also ahead of the US in its development?

[bluewater]

13. Excellent points made.

[WarGamer]

27. thanks!

[Tomconroy]

15. Supposedly this is a video the Russian MOD released

of the attack. If that's what it is they didn't hit 4 or 5 similar looking buildings. And it's a not very big explosion for hitting a massive ammo depot. But I really don't know.

Link to tweet

[ancianita]

35. Hits underground don't look very big, right?

So determining the size of an underground target and damage is harder than a hit above ground. It was done by a super fast missile for just that reason -- to wipe out a depot.

[Tomconroy]

39. They hit an empty building.

[ancianita]

42. I won't argue the facts, just putting out there what the tweet states:

the destruction of a Ukrainian weapons depot in a "precision strike", claiming that an underground structure was hit.

Link to tweet

[ProfessorGAC]

19. Only A Couple Minor Issues

Mostly I agree with that assessment as to why such an expensive weapon was used. It's a message.
However, they are far less than transparent regarding the quality of their weapons system.
You said it showed that it works. Well, that one did, at least. Given what we know about the lack of reliability in Soviet weapons during the cold war, it's an open question as to whether it's 100% or 20% that do what they're supposed to do.
Then, given their puny GDP, I think it's a stretch to trust they have a substantial inventory of these costly weapons.
If one only had a few, and used one, and it worked, the next logical move would be to announce it to the world.
Maybe they do have a bunch. Maybe not.
Maybe they're highly reliable. Maybe not.
But, the "stay out of Ukraine" message is sent either way by making this announcement. It probably has more punch as a threat than using nukes, as the latter poses a much higher chance of a refusal down the chain of command.
But, commanders & troops would be more willing to fire this weapon because WW3 is not a likely outcome.
I'm leaning toward they have a few, not many. I think it's a 50:50 shot that the system is not reliable.

[WarGamer]

20. all reasonable points, thx!

[bluewater]

29. "given their puny GDP" You mean the 6th largest GDP PPP in the world?

The Russian GDP on a PPP basis is larger than the UK 's or France's, for example.

GDP comparisons using PPP are arguably more useful than those using nominal GDP when assessing a nation's domestic market because PPP takes into account the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country, rather than using international market exchange rates, which may distort the real differences in per capita income.[3] It is however limited when measuring financial flows between countries and when comparing the quality of same goods among countries.[4] PPP is often used to gauge global poverty thresholds and is used by the United Nations in constructing the human development index.[3] These surveys such as the International Comparison Program include both tradable and non-tradable goods in an attempt to estimate a representative basket of all goods.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)#:~:text=GDP%20%28PPP%2C%20US%24%20million%29%20by%20country%20or%20territory,%20%20N%2FA%20%2030%20more%20rows%20

[Tomconroy]

37. Russian GDP by any measure is going to get a whole lot smaller.

[bluewater]

40. Yeah good thing we have all those nail salons and pizza places propping ours up, huh?

Joking.

Mostly.




But it would pay to notice that the #1 GDP PPP, China, and the #3 GDP PPP, India, have both chosen not to sanction Russia.

Yet.

Let's hope that changes.

India buys Russian oil despite pressure for sanctions

Fri, March 18, 2022, 1:22 AM·2 min read
NEW DELHI (AP) — The state-run Indian Oil Corp. bought 3 million barrels of crude oil from Russia earlier this week to secure its energy needs, resisting Western pressure to avoid such purchases, an Indian government official said Friday.

The official said India has not imposed sanctions against buying oil and will be looking to purchase more from Russia despite calls not to from the U.S. and other countries.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to talk to reporters.
The United States, Britain and other western countries are urging India to avoid buying Russian oil and gas. Indian media reports said Russia was offering a discount on oil purchases of 20% below global benchmark prices.

Such prices have surged in recent weeks, posing a huge burden for countries like India, which imports 85% of the oil it consumes. Its demand is projected to jump 8.2% this year to 5.15 million barrels per day as the economy recovers from the devastation caused by the pandemic.

https://news.yahoo.com/india-buys-russian-oil-despite-052218946.htmlhttps://news.yahoo.com/india-buys-russian-oil-despite-052218946.html

[Tomconroy]

41. Chinese ppp gdp larger than US??????

[bluewater]

43. China's GDP PPP has been larger than the US for at least 2 years, I believe.

The world is changing, especially economically.

Notice how few of the G7 nations, originally the world's seven larget economies are in the top 7 now.

G7 Nations:
The United States of America. currently 2nd
Canada.
The United Kingdom.
Germany. currently 5th
Italy.
France.
Japan. currently 4th

Heck, Indonesia economy makes the top 7 GDP PPP list now.

[Tomconroy]

46. Think you need a new chart. Smaller economy and more people

Or else they are measuring something that is essentially useless as a comparison between countries. I can't tell.

[bluewater]

47. You are confusing "Richness", GDP per Capita, with size of the country's economy.

Luxemburg has a GDP per Capita of over $105,000 compared to China's measly $16,000 per person.

Yet how many stealth fighters and aircraft carriers has Luxemburg built compared to China?

China's People's Liberation Army Navy is composed of five branches; the Submarine Force, the Surface Force, the Coastal Defense Force, the Marine Corps and the Naval Air Force.[13] With a personnel strength of 240,000 personnel, including 15,000 marines and 26,000 naval air force personnel,[4] it is the second largest navy in the world in terms of tonnage which stands at 1,820,222 tonne as of 2019,[14] only behind the United States Navy, and has the largest number of major surface combatants of any navy globally with an overall battle force of approximately 350 surface ships and submarines — in comparison, the United States Navy's battle force is approximately 293 ships.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy

Hey, the world has changed. The center of the world's economic power has shifted dramatically over the last 30 years.

We all better get used to that fact.

[Tomconroy]

49. Sorry. You've lost me.

[ProfessorGAC]

51. You Should Quit Digging

GDP has nothing to do with "richness".
It's not an aggregation of total wealth or combined value of assets.
It's the summation of Consumption + Gov't Spending + Transfer Payments + Net Exports.
It's a reflection of a countries total economic activity per unit time.
There is nothing to confuse.
The United States has a total asset base of $270 trillion & 330 million people. China has a total asset base of $80 trillion with 1.4 billion people. That's a measure of total domestic wealth, and GDP is not.
Chinese GDP is $13.8 trillion. For the US it's $20 trillion plus.
There is no measure that puts the Chinese economy above that of the US.
You're basing a whole lot of conjecture on a chart that's clearly presenting distorted data.

[bluewater]

55. WRONG -- "There is no measure that puts the Chinese economy above that of the US."

First, GDP PER CAPITA is often used as a measure of the standard of living, the "richness", of a country.

But more importantly, you also seem to be totally unaware of the existence of GDP PPP ratings by entities like the IMF and World bank.

GDP (PPP) means gross domestic product based on purchasing power parity. This article includes a list of countries by their forecast estimated GDP (PPP).[2] Countries are sorted by GDP (PPP) forecast estimates from financial and statistical institutions that calculate using market or government official exchange rates. The data given on this page are based on the international dollar, a standardized unit used by economists. Certain regions that are not widely considered countries such as the European Union and Hong Kong also show up in the list if they are distinct jurisdiction areas or economic entities.

GDP comparisons using PPP are arguably more useful than those using nominal GDP when assessing a nation's domestic market because PPP takes into account the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country, rather than using international market exchange rates, which may distort the real differences in per capita income.[3] It is however limited when measuring financial flows between countries and when comparing the quality of same goods among countries.[4] PPP is often used to gauge global poverty thresholds and is used by the United Nations in constructing the human development index.[3] These surveys such as the International Comparison Program include both tradable and non-tradable goods in an attempt to estimate a representative basket of all goods.[3]

The first table includes estimates for the year 2020 made for each economy of the 194 countries and areas (including Hong Kong and Taiwan) covered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)'s International Financial Statistics (IFS) database. The data is in millions of international dollars and was calculated and published by the IMF in April 2020. The second table includes data, mostly for the year 2018, for 180 of the 193 current United Nations member states as well as Hong Kong and Macau (the two Chinese Special Administrative Regions). Data are in millions of international dollars; they were compiled by the World Bank. The third table is a tabulation of the CIA World Factbook GDP (PPP) data update of 2019. The data for GDP at purchasing power parity has also been rebased using the new International Comparison Program price surveys and extrapolated to 2007. Non-sovereign entities (the world, continents, and some dependent territories) and states with limited recognition (such as Kosovo, Palestine and Taiwan) are included in the list in cases in which they appear in the sources. These economies are not ranked in the charts here, but are listed in sequence by GDP for comparison. In addition, non-sovereign entities are marked in italics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)#

Here's the chart again from that exhaustive list of countries ranked by GDP PPP, a measure of the actual size of their economy.



"There is no measure that puts the Chinese economy above that of the US."

And yet the IMF, World Bank and the CIA disagree with you.

"You're basing a whole lot of conjecture on a chart that's clearly presenting distorted data."

No, you are ignoring data from the IMF, World Bank and CIA that anyone can check for themselves with a simple google search.

[Tomconroy]

60. Out of curiosity I did look it up. Not a very useful statistic to the

extent it is a statistic at all.

[bluewater]

61. Well, the IMF, World Bank and CIA seem to put some stock in it though.

Thanks for the discussion.

Enjoy your evening.

[ProfessorGAC]

77. You're The One Who Is Wrong

So wrong, it's laughable.
I'm done discussing this topic with someone so easily confused.

[bluewater]

78. Non-substantial denial of easily confirmed IMF & World Bank GDP PPP data noted!!!

Facts are stubborn things.

You are, to use your words, "so wrong, it's laughable" when you claim:

"There is no measure that puts the Chinese economy above that of the US."

And yet the IMF, World Bank and the CIA disagree with you.

GDP (PPP, US$ million)

IMF
China: $26,656,766 2021
United States: $22,675,271 2021

World Bank
China: $24,273,360 2020
United States: $22,675,271 2021

CIA
China : $23,009,780 2020
United States: $19,846,720 2020


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)

At this point I think it's quite obvious who is wrong. You.

[ProfessorGAC]

50. Edited 14 Days Ago On Wiki

14 days ago.
Here's a link that can't be conveniently edited by propagandists.
https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-per-capita/
Russia is 57th! They have a nominal GDP of $1.48 trillion and around 140 million people. The US has 2.5 time the people and a 15x larger GDP. So, yes. It's puny.
Also, you believed a graph that shows China's per capita GDP is higher than the US? That India has a higher one that Japan?
China has more than 4x the US population with a nominal GDP of 60%. The ridiculousness of that graph should be obvious.
Your site is clearly misinformation or worse, disinformation.

[bluewater]

52. You don't seem to understand the difference between GDP per CAPITA and GDP PPP.

In the spirit of respect and friendship because I enjoy our discussions, I suggest you research the difference between the two.

GDP PPP is a measure of the total size of a country's economy and yes China's economy is larger than the US.

GDP per CAPITA is a measure of the standard of living in a country, how rich it is in a way, NOT the total size of that country's economy.

Again, tiny Luxemburg has a GDP per CAPITA of $105,000 compared to China's $16,000 but the TOTAL SIZE of China's economy is immense compared to Luxemburgs.

Please research GDP per CAPITA and GDP PPP, there are tons of good explanations of both available online.

Best regards,

[MoonlitKnight]

65. GDP PPP is based upon exchange rates

So those numbers today are not what they were three weeks ago.

[bluewater]

73. "rather than using international market exchange rates"

GDP comparisons using PPP are arguably more useful than those using nominal GDP when assessing a nation's domestic market because PPP takes into account the relative cost of local goods, services and inflation rates of the country, rather than using international market exchange rates, which may distort the real differences in per capita income.[3] It is however limited when measuring financial flows between countries and when comparing the quality of same goods among countries.[4] PPP is often used to gauge global poverty thresholds and is used by the United Nations in constructing the human development index.[3] These surveys such as the International Comparison Program include both tradable and non-tradable goods in an attempt to estimate a representative basket of all goods.[3]

I think the Russian defense industry is pretty much a 100% domestic entity, no?
So, again, I don't think financial flows _between_ countries is an issue for the Russians when making weapons for themselves, right?

And don't we, the US, actually buy some needed raw materials, like titanium, for our Defense industries from Russia, not the reverse?

Please remember I started this sub-thread on GDP PPP replying to this comment:

"Then, given their puny GDP, I think it's a stretch to trust they have a substantial inventory of these costly weapons."

Honestly, sanctions not withstanding, I believe that Russia will be producing MORE weapons for itself domestically and arming themselves to the teeth over the next several years since that is a self sufficient domestic industry for them.

Thanks for the discussion.

[ancianita]

36. Thank you for the analysis.

I'm learning how to think about modern war even as the ends are barbaric.

[Kingofalldems]

22. Should we give up?

[WarGamer]

24. Who is we? The US?

I think WE are doing precisely the correct thing... supplying the maximum amount of weapons AND punishing Russia financially while STILL avoiding WW3.

I support President Biden 110%

[pecosbob]

26. One would think so

It seems their short-range ballistic missiles have a decoy capability we didn't know about that was staring us right in the face.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44760/russias-use-of-iskander-ballistic-missiles-in-ukraine-exposes-secret-decoy-capability

[erronis]

34. Yes, the weapon works, evades detection and might be unstoppable. But there are very few of these

and they are putting their latest technology on the line.

From what I've seen the Russian's technology ain't all it's been flouted to be. Just like the Nazi's in Germany before.

Just my 2c. Putin spent a lot of time in East Germany and was interacting with their Stazi. I'm thinking he came out of this period more aligned with the Nazis than with his communist/bolshevik (supposed) soviet government.

[Quixote1818]

44. They only have a few of those missiles. Once those run out then what? nt

[Iggo]

45. My first thought is, "Well, how many camera angles were the using?"

In other words, I think it was for show.

[haele]

63. Hmmm, my question would be were those missiles actually the ones advertised?

Sure, they might look like it, but was there actually any evidence they went more than supersonic? Distance was a bit short for a good assessment.
Also, nothing really new about hypersonic missiles. There was no real shock in most military circles when Russia announced they had them last year.

Haele

[krispos42]

48. Ammo dumps don't shoot back?

The resulting secondary explosions will pulverize the missile wreckage to make analysis of the weapon harder?

If they had a lot of them they would have used them in the opening hours of the war, to strike airfields, communications centers, headquarters, and SAM sites as Russian troops crossed into Ukraine.

[EX500rider]

58. No secondary explosions in the vid..either not a ammo dump or empty I'd say nt

[ecstatic]

53. I wonder if we have a red line

that puny can't cross without getting killed.

[melm00se]

54. To paraphrase Gen Bradley

Amateurs worry about weapons/tactics/strategies, professionals talk/worry about logistics.

Putin, as has been pointed out, may be running out of readily available weapons and personnel so he is going to this weapon to scare folks.

I am sure that the Pentagon, MoD etc are all thinking that Putin is running out of options and might be close to losing this battle.

As to Putin's targeting: It looks like he chose a lesser defended target so he didn't run the risk of being embarrassed if his missile was intercepted after all the Russian bluster about their hypersonic missiles.

[Tomconroy]

62. It may be the Russian MOD made up the entire story.

Link to tweet

The story attached is interesting.


And the video is on the Russian Ministry of Defense twitter feed. So I would say the claim of the Russians is a complete fraud!

[WarGamer]

64. But the US confirmed the use of the weapon today.

Twitter non-blue check knows more than DoD?

[Tomconroy]

66. The video is a phony and the article makes a good case that

The story is unlikely.

[WarGamer]

68. US confirmed.

Maybe the video is wrong, whatever but they used the missiles

US officials confirmed to CNN that Russia launched powerful hypersonic missiles against Ukraine last week, the first known use of such missiles in combat. Russia claimed it deployed hypersonic missiles on Friday to destroy an ammunition warehouse in western Ukraine.

[Tomconroy]

69. Whole thing is bizarre

[Tomconroy]

70. The NY Times tried to get a confirmation from the Pentwgon

today but they wouldn't confirm. It's a very strange story. CNN implies there was more than one but the Russians don't claim that.

[EX500rider]

72. I'd say it means they are running low on the cheaper stuff & have to break out the gold plated stuff

[Meowmee]

75. It would seem so

Since they can be used with nuclear warheads which would be way more powerful than the atomic bombs used in WW2 which were also surface blasts which equals far less nuclear fallout.

[pecosbob]

76. It's starting to smell like fish in here...

We Have Questions About Russia's Claimed Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile Use In Ukraine

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44840/we-have-questions-about-russias-claimed-kinzhal-hypersonic-missile-use-in-ukraine

[Sapient Donkey]

81. Is it possible the ammo dump was well protected by anti-air/anti-missile systems capable of shooting

down their subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles?