Lulz.
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
192 points (98.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6856 readers
267 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Just over two weeks. That's almost 5 times as long as the entire special operation!
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-s500-air-defense-system-crimea-ukraine-kyrylo-budanov-1912333
The S-500 is designed to intercept short-to medium-range targets, including ballistic, cruise and hypersonic missiles, according to Russian state-run media.
Less than two weeks in the field and the first S-500 has apparently already intercepted a ballistic missile of the sort it was designed to counter.
One imagines that additional S-500 systems would surely produce additional interceptions.
Shit-talking aside, though, Russia never claimed that the S-500 was actually done -- I assume that they just yanked their prototype onto the battlefield because the S-400 wasn't able to intercept ATACMS missiles either (which it's supposed to be able to -- the S-400 doesn't have an excuse). We rolled out the Patriot when it was still in a prototype, half-baked stage in Iraq, too -- just that it was all we had that might be able to intercept a ballistic missile, and we really needed the capability right then -- and it didn't fare well either.
So I suppose that the S-500 guys probably don't necessarily deserve quite the ribbing that the S-400 guys do. They were probably put in kind of the same place that our Patriot guys were.
We rolled out the Patriot when it was still in a prototype, half-baked stage in Iraq, too -- just that it was all we had that might be able to intercept a ballistic missile, and we really needed the capability right then -- and it didn't fare well either.
About 9% intercept ratio during Desert Storm, which was 30 years ago, but both the Patriot and the Al Hussain missiles were pretty much brand new. S400 is a decade and a half newer than ATACMS though.
Patriot did (a lot?) better in Iraqi Freedom, but the exact numbers are all over the place.
About 9% intercept ratio during Desert Storm, which was 30 years ago, but both the Patriot and the Al Hussain missiles were pretty much brand new.
Regarding being brand new, what I mean is that the Patriot existed for an anti-aircraft role, but its anti-ballistic-missile capability wasn't supposed to have been done by that point.
It was pretty new though, it was in use for some 5 years when the Gulf War started.
Sure, but in the 90s intercepting a ballistic missile was a new capability. The tech must be more mature now. Besides, the way Russian procurement works, prototypes are usually light years ahead of what eventually gets produced and issued.
so it was “near Kharkiv”, huh?