[cameldrv]

The Kinzhal is AFAIK ballistic. The Russians refer to it as a hypersonic weapon because it sounds scary, but really it’s just an air launched SRBM. The Russians do have a maneuvering hypersonic weapon, the Avangard, but it’s strictly nuclear and launched from an ICBM booster, not a plane.

[themgt]

It's worth watching the videos of the Kinzhal/Patriot showdown in Kiev. As far as I can tell the actual raw videos are pretty rare anywhere mainstream. I found the Telegraph with a minute of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4sTZ1_9Cn8

And just some rando with the closest to the original raw video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjxX2gqdlkQ

Objectively as possible it looks like ~30 Patriot missiles were fired (plausibly the whole 32 missile battery). The production rate of these by Lockheed Martin is 500 missiles, annual. Up to 550/year starting this year. They're apparently attempting to intercept somewhere between 2-6 Kinzhals fired, and it appears 1-2 of those Kinzhals (i.e. between 15-100%) got through and struck the Patriot battery and at least damaged it. That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success.

So it's both correct that Kinzhal is really just an air-launched SRBM not a hypersonic glide weapon, and that our existing missile defense looks at best barely capable of partially defending against very limited numbers of conventional SRBM.

[ncallaway]

The Ukrainian claim is in that engagement they downed 6 Kinzhals, 9 Kalibrs and 3 Iskanders.

We don’t need to take the Ukrainian claims as totally accurate, but it’s worth at least including that the battery of patriots were fired at more than just the 2-6 Kinzhal missiles that you tallied (at least when we want to look at annual production rates).

The Russian’s haven’t been able to sustain a launch rate of once a month with smaller attacks. This attack was an unusually high density. Expending three weeks production capacity to fend off an attack that can be launched at most every 2-3 months seems… manageable.

In terms of this conflict, also worth considering that Patriot isn’t the only system in Ukraine, so if production of Patriot missiles becomes a constraint, they can shift more AD burden to IRIS-T and other European systems.

When considering the broader implications to the US, I think it’s not exactly right to describe Patriot as our “existing missile defense”. We have a number of other missile defense systems such as NASAMs and THAAD that occupy complimentary roles to the Patriot systems. If anything based on the performance of Patriot in Ukraine I have more confidence than I previously did in our missile defense systems. Performance in real world conditions has seemed pretty good to me.

[dragonwriter]

> That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success.

Its a total success; the purpose of a defensive system is prevent something else from being hit. And, there’s pretty good reason to believe that the reason there aren’t more than about 6 Kinzhals in Russia every-one-to-two-week mass missile attacks is that they simply aren’t producing enough to fire more. Also, there were 18 missiles in the barrage, including other SRBMs (the ground launched Iskander), S-300s used in surface-to-surface mode, and cruise missiles, not just the 6 Kinzhals.

> So it's both correct that Kinzhal is really just an air-launched SRBM not a hypersonic glide weapon, and that our existing missile defense looks at best barely capable of partially defending against very limited numbers of conventional SRBM.

Patriot isn’t the whole (or even the most capable system) of our existing ballistic missile defense, even if it is the most notable system of ours deployed, as of today, in Ukraine. THAAD exists, and is more capable than Patriot.

[ceejayoz]

> That's around 3 weeks total annual production of Patriot missiles fired in 2 minutes at a handful of targets with at best partial success.

How many Kinzhals can Russia make a month? I can only find motivated sources, but those say ~10/month, and that's after a push to increase production.

[zip1234]

I've seen a lot of criticism about giving weapons to Ukraine because of a 'current production is only X per month' thought process. It's a flawed premise because production was only supporting the needs of a peacetime force. Production in peacetime is there just to maintain capability and meet export demand. However, it is exceptionally useful to practice scaling up production to ensure that the capability to do so is there. Russia has failed the test so far--whether or not the US and allies pass the test remains to be seen.

[themgt]

The question you should be asking is how many China can make in a month.

[ncallaway]

I think one lesson from this war has been that ammunition stockpiles of all kinds will be depleted quickly in a widespread conventional conflict with China, and that replacement production would need to be drastically scaled up across all systems (from tank ammunition, to artillery, and air defense missiles).

And difference of how many China “can” make in a month and how many Patriot missiles Lockheed “is” making in a month are very different questions. How many missiles could Lockheed make in a month given 3 months lead time in a conflict with China? I bet it’s significantly more than we are currently making now.

[ceejayoz]

That invites follow-up questions, though.

* Is the Patriot the only available system? (No. THAAD, SM3.)

* Is monthly production likely to matter in a US vs. China war? (Probably not.)

* Can China's hypersonics hit moving targets like carriers? (Much harder, at the very least.)

China also has to ask the "what if our R&D, procurement, and training system is as corrupt/ineffective as Russia's turned out to be?" question.

[mrguyorama]

China is just as upset as the rest of the world about learning that real war requires lots of ammo, and not just a pittance in a storehouse somewhere.

Powerful countries have been surprised at how much ammo is required since firearms became the dominant way to wage war.

[int_19h]

It's not ammo for handheld guns that is the primary issue in Ukraine for both sides; it's the artillery shells. The main reason why Russian losses in Bakhmut were so high is because Wagner took the city by waves after waves of infantry assaults on fortified urban positions with very little artillery support - because they cannot sustain it.

This isn't really a surprise, either - this isn't any different from any other major modern war where the sides are roughly on par. The original surprise was that Ukraine managed to hold up against the initial invasion such that positional warfare became more prominent, and with it the traditional dominant role of artillery.

[Animatronio]

So you're saying that artillery became more dominant and yet the Russians don't use it in Bakhmut? But then who does?

[fauxpause_]

China is not sending missiles to Russia

[infamia]

Videos on these attacks and the Ukraine/Russian War in general are widely circulated and documented by YouTubers like Suchuminous and also by various accounts on Twitter. You can find videos of most any attack within a day or two and sometimes on the same day.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=patriot+Suchomi...

There are numerous types of missile systems (SAMs) protecting Kyiv including IRIS-T, S300, and others. Looking at the various videos of the attack on Kyiv, the missiles had a very different physical appearance from each other, lending credence to the supposition that different SAMs were active. This would make a lot of sense considering there were different types of Russian missiles active (Kinzal, Iskander, etc.).

> They're apparently attempting to intercept somewhere between 2-6 Kinzhals fired, and it appears 1-2 of those Kinzhals (i.e. between 15-100%) got through and struck the Patriot battery and at least damaged it.

Although information is limited, there is no evidence of any Kinzhals making it through and striking anything of note. It seems that one Patriot Battery was lightly damaged, but all Patriot Batteries of them were fully operational before and after the strike. The one Patriot battery was lightly damaged and repaired in the field within a few days. This strongly suggests that the Patriot battery was hit by debris of some kind (perhaps from shot down missiles) [1], and not a direct strike as the clowns at the Russian MOD laughably claims (they've also claimed to have destroyed every single HIMARs launcher and the Ukrainian Air Force three times over).

[1] https://youtu.be/OPGn2TXJaQs?t=34

[giantrobot]

It's important to note that a Patriot battery consists of multiple components that can be distributed over a wide area. There's the trailer-mounted launchers, fire control radar, and the command and control unit. All the components talk to each other but don't need to be parked next to each other. Damage to a single launcher doesn't prevent the other launchers in the battery from functioning. A damaged radar can be covered by a backup or even the radar from another battery.

[infamia]

Great points all. The reports that I've seen indicates that none of the launchers were offline, and the one launcher was repaired in a few days.