Politics

[Ray B]

@Red Leg In looking at the shoot down video, from the trajectory of the helicopter after being hit, it had a fair amount of speed. but the missile appeared to follow a straight flight path. It seems to me that the missile should have had a slight turn in its path since the location of the target would have changed between the firing of the missile and contact. Or was the missile so fast that that the change was miniscule?

 

[Red Leg]

Ukraine Update--The Russian Offensive | The Gateway Pundit | by Larry Johnson

Rob Schmitt on Newsmax on the Russian invasion of Ukraine (The following is from Patrick Armstrong.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

That is the most tortured explanation or spin of Russian tactical inertia I have yet read. Calling this a reconnaissance in force is one of the most abusive uses of a military term I have ever seen.

Russia may very well force a favorable conclusion to this conflict. But I see little evidence the current battle was envisioned when hostilities commenced.

 

[Red Leg]

@Red Leg In looking at the shoot down video, from the trajectory of the helicopter after being hit, it had a fair amount of speed. but the missile appeared to follow a straight flight path. It seems to me that the missile should have had a slight turn in its path since the location of the target would have changed between the firing of the missile and contact. Or was the missile so fast that that the change was miniscule?

The missile‘s microprocessor constantly updates and compensates for target trajectory. If the aircraft is far enough away, flares and sudden maneuvers can break missile lock. Though it is much harder to do with the newest model Stinger. At that closing speed, I doubt the crew ever knew they were under attack.

 

[Ray B]

So the short answer is that the missile was so fast that its path had very little/undiscernible change?

 

[Pheroze]

This is a fascinating video for all the armchair tacticians. It was apparently released by the Ukrainian armed forces overnight and is being carried by major news outlets like "The Telegraph" and "Guardian." The aircraft is a Russian Federation MI 24 attack helicopter.

The original Stinger was a "revenge" weapon. The passive IR seeker needed a clear view of the jet engine exhaust to achieve acquisition. If the gunner survived the first pass, he might have an opportunity to take down the jet or chopper.

The newest equipment has all aspect UV capability and is also largely spoof proof to IR flares which has become the standard protection from MANPAD systems. The attack helicopter in the video was engaged from about a two o'clock firing position. Assuming the video is what it appears to be, you can draw your own conclusions about the quality of the systems being provided Ukraine.

With a lot of war footage the armchair QB in me cheers a victory. But, I confess that this time I find it just tragic. We have the diseased mind of a tyrant inflicting such carnage. But, I am finding your information to be very informative and helpful to my understanding. Thank you.

 

[Ray B]

— When was democracy born?

— When God brought Adam to Eve and said, "Choose your wife."

Fact Check @Vashper - Please provide chapter and verse, or is it just a joke for the irreligious?

 

[Scott CWO]

N

I don't understand this concern for Putin's health. Well, there will be Shoigu or Kadyrov instead of him - and what, will you like it more?

No. All a bunch of thieves while the peasants are deceived by a controlled press/media. Ever ask yourself why the government controls your media? A free press, the right to peacefully assemble to protest, the right to free and fair elections, a constitution that cannot be changed except by a 2/3 vote of all the states and the individual right to bear arms are all needed to keep the power with the people, not with a dictator.

 

[Scott CWO]

View attachment 455717

This is priceless

 

[Red Leg]

So the short answer is that the missile was so fast that its path had very little/undiscernible change?

I think this video, apparently shot four or five days ago, better illustrates the process. In this case it is a deflection shot. The target is again a Mi 24 which seems to be part of an air assault group. It is impossible to know the exact range, though this looks like cell phone footage, so probably no more than a thousand meters. I am guessing the gunner is at 9 - 10 o'clock reference the Hind's heading.

One can assume a missile has already been fired, because the choppers are maneuvering and actively deploying flares. On early IR only weapons, this was a fairly effective technique to spoof a missile looking for the hottest possible target. With UV - not so much.

The gunner does not account for deflection. Instead he enables the seeker and aims at the target until the seeker gives him an acquisition tone. He then fires, and the missile immediately begins to process range, speed, and deflection for an intercept course, correcting constantly as the target maneuvers until the proximity warhead detonates or it runs out of fuel. The shorter the range and higher the closing speed, the less opportunity for avoidance maneuvers. It travels at mach 2.5.

 

[Ray B]

I see- so the missile builds in the lead at firing- It figures where the target will be and goes to that spot, with adjustments along the way based on changes in the targets movements. I wonder if my shotgun could have that system built into it for calculating target location when shooting sporting clays.

 

[Ray B]

N

No. The missile constantly adjusts to the movement of the target. It was fired from the right of the camera so you don’t see the adjustments.

Right, if I understand it correctly, the missile adjusts its movements as it tracks the target, but on firing the missile has a "lead" built into it's path and the adjustments would be a result of the target changing from it's initial direction/speed. So if the target had a steady direction & speed the missile would follow a straight line.

Rockets have come a long way since my days with the 3.5" rocket launcher.

 

[Brent in Az]

RT is a Russian station and has had the plug pulled on it in UK and other countries....have seen some of the stuff on it, and would say its basically a Russian state propaganda machine...

Over here, we call it CNN.

 

[Scott CWO]

Right, if I understand it correctly, the missile adjusts its movements as it tracks the target, but on firing the missile has a "lead" built into it's path and the adjustments would be a result of the target changing from it's initial direction/speed. So if the target had a steady direction & speed the missile would follow a straight line.

Rockets have come a long way since my days with the 3.5" rocket launcher.

I erased my post because Joe’s answer was already in the works. As he said, the person holding and roughly aiming the weapon hears a tone once the weapon and missile has locked onto the target. Once the missile is fired, it constantly adjusts to the movements of the target. As for lead, the missile is constantly adjusting so lead isn’t probably the right word. If you think about a similar system for air to air combat between jets, the jets are both constantly moving on different and ever-changing axis so lead, as we know it with a shotgun would be impossible. The missiles are just constantly updating their flight surfaces to stay locked on the target.

 

[One Day...]

I see- so the missile builds in the lead at firing- It figures where the target will be and goes to that spot, with adjustments along the way based on changes in the targets movements. I wonder if my shotgun could have that system built into it for calculating target location when shooting sporting clays.

Not quite Ray B, the missile tracks, it does not anticipate and there is no calculated lead at firing, although there is typically some angle due to shooter movement, trigger jerk, etc.

What Red Leg means is that modern weapons do not correct tracking course periodically by large, i.e. visible, course corrections, but they correct constantly by minute corrections, which makes it a lot less visible by human eye.

If the range was long, one would see an arching trajectory, but with short-range high-velocity weapons the trajectory corrections are almost imperceptible to the human eye.

 

[BourbonTrail]

I see- so the missile builds in the lead at firing- It figures where the target will be and goes to that spot, with adjustments along the way based on changes in the targets movements. I wonder if my shotgun could have that system built into it for calculating target location when shooting sporting clays.

I could make you one of those…for a fee.

 

[One Day...]

This video (which is not related to current operations in Ukraine) explains very well how the Javelin (and air dropped, top-down weapons) work, and why the cage protection is not only unlikely to defeat them, but may actually increase their penetration capability (although it is not needed on top armor as mentioned by Red Leg) by creating a stand off detonation.

Not to mention the fact that all modern weapons have a tandem warhead with a first warhead designed to defeat the protection, and the second, main warhead designed to defeat the armor.

Cage armors (typically on the sides of less armored vehicles) still work with older generation, shoulder-fired weapons like the ubiquitous RPG7, of which it seems there are still tens or hundreds of thousands out there, because they have a single, and much smaller warhead.

 

[Red Leg]

Not quite Ray B, the missile tracks, it does not anticipate and there is no calculated lead at firing, although there is typically some angle due to shooter movement, trigger jerk, etc.

What Red Leg means is that modern weapons do not correct tracking course periodically by large, i.e. visible, course corrections, but they correct constantly by minute corrections, which makes it a lot less visible by human eye.

If the range was long, one would see an arching trajectory, but with short-range high-velocity weapons the trajectory corrections are almost imperceptible to the human eye.

Exactly

 

[Vashper]

Yes, this video is available, in different versions.

I see on it a defeated Russian supply column, crushed by heavy Ukrainian artillery. The collateral damage, in my opinion, is too big, but I'm not an artilleryman, and I don't know if it was possible to reduce it. Nevertheless, I can assume that the Ukrainian general who gave the order to shoot at his city sees his future somewhere else besides Ukraine.

A tank with a "canopy" (possibly against Javelin) has nothing to do with this war - there are no tactical signs on it.

Shooting an attack on a helicopter is technically very good; otherwise, alas, there are losses in war. However, this is not the Mi-24, but something more modern.

I can't say anything about the military component, there is no information about the federal army. On the Internet there are only shots from the Ukrainian side, many of which are fakes, and materials from the republican armies operating in auxiliary areas.

 

[Tanks]

A smaller country is attacked by a larger country. The smaller country asks the world community to help remove the attacking army. A coalition of countries is assembled and the aggressors army is moved out of the small country.

the difference between two similar situations is that when Kuwait was the target, the US had a real president in office. Unfortunately, I don't expect Ukraine to have the luxury of waiting three years for the electorate in the US to change that.

One big difference and the US President has nothing to do with it. If Iraq also had a multitude of nuclear weapons aimed at Europe and the US, I very much doubt we would have gone in.

 

[Tanks]

Easy to believe when your force fed only one side of the story, much like the left side of America, they can’t understand how the world really works.

The right side is pretty much the same when all they hear is their own echo chamber. At this time the USA is very much divided with neither side of the political spectrum trusting each other and expecting the worst.