The US seems to struggle producing both interceptors and cruise missiles, as highlighted by the Iran attacks. Russia, on the other hand, seems to have attack missiles in abundance. Is there a paradox?
Is the Russian bombing comparable with the US striking some 13,000 targets in Iran during a few months? I assume the number of Russian strikes is smaller while it has had a bigger terror effect.
How does the damage value, besides the human fatalities, compare to the cost of ballistic missiles? Ballistic missile price compared to interceptor?
The ballistic missiles Russia (and Iran) is producing are significantly cheaper than US-made ballistic missile interceptors, both because they make use of comparatively simpler technologies and PPP price conversions, which favor Russia, Iran, China, and others.
As a general rule, guidance countermeasures have proven to be distinctly the most cost-effective measures of defense against missiles. To be sure, there are guidance systems such as pure inertial for which no countermeasures have been found, but there are both technical and economic reasons why such cases are not common. Is anything known of the guidance systems used in the Russian SRBMs?
Iskander and Kinzahl use IMU/GNSS. There are some reports of terminal EO guidance, but I have never seen definitive proof. Even if it's the case, it's likely only a small subset of missiles that are being produced.
I have made a post about Ukraine's ability to fight Russian ballistic missiles through EW. You can find it in the archive.
This is all logical and recognised, but what if the scenario was flipped; Ukraine gains ballistic missile attack capability. Can you provide some information on Russia’s ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack? And of course, the feasibility of Ukraine developing a homegrown ballistic missile system.
Russia's ability would likely be as limited, though much will depend on the number of ballistic missiles Ukraine can produce in a given year. If they also reach 700-800+, Russia will not be able to keep up.
That's the idea! The problem with that approach is of course that while you may reduce the adversary's overall state capacity, you don't reduce its ability to shift resources. And Russia is clearly prioritizing BM production over other equipment.
On TV Trump said US would give Ukraine licence to produce interceptors & yesterday rescinded it! Why does anyone believe him? If he had lost the election, the war would be over! Trump is in Putin’s pocket!
I wonder whether a “breakthrough approach” is possible. A missile wall / dome at the frontier? Laser technology? Air-based launches? Mobile short range defenses for main cities? Destroying Russian supply lines?
I’m no expert, but there must be *something* we can do except hope the interceptor situation improves in 2028.
The main goal of such a solution is to rebalance the production cost and production quantity between attacker and defender.
N Korea and Iran sell ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine and nobody says a word about it. If Germany gave Ukraine 1 Taurus missile everyone would be saying that WWIII is about to happen. When is the last time Ukraine launched a Scalp missile? The difference in direct weapon and troop support from allies to Russia and Ukraine favours Russia by a substantial margin.
If I understand correctly, we could soon enter a world where Russia, North Korea and Iran have a lot more ballistic missiles at hand than Europe and US have in terms of interceptor capacity
The US seems to struggle producing both interceptors and cruise missiles, as highlighted by the Iran attacks. Russia, on the other hand, seems to have attack missiles in abundance. Is there a paradox?
Is the Russian bombing comparable with the US striking some 13,000 targets in Iran during a few months? I assume the number of Russian strikes is smaller while it has had a bigger terror effect.
How does the damage value, besides the human fatalities, compare to the cost of ballistic missiles? Ballistic missile price compared to interceptor?
The ballistic missiles Russia (and Iran) is producing are significantly cheaper than US-made ballistic missile interceptors, both because they make use of comparatively simpler technologies and PPP price conversions, which favor Russia, Iran, China, and others.
Dire situation.
A hard but necessary read. Excellent explanation Fabian, thank you 👍
Thanks, yes no pleasure writing it, but it needs to be put out there.
Absolutely 👍
As a general rule, guidance countermeasures have proven to be distinctly the most cost-effective measures of defense against missiles. To be sure, there are guidance systems such as pure inertial for which no countermeasures have been found, but there are both technical and economic reasons why such cases are not common. Is anything known of the guidance systems used in the Russian SRBMs?
Iskander and Kinzahl use IMU/GNSS. There are some reports of terminal EO guidance, but I have never seen definitive proof. Even if it's the case, it's likely only a small subset of missiles that are being produced.
I have made a post about Ukraine's ability to fight Russian ballistic missiles through EW. You can find it in the archive.
This is all logical and recognised, but what if the scenario was flipped; Ukraine gains ballistic missile attack capability. Can you provide some information on Russia’s ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack? And of course, the feasibility of Ukraine developing a homegrown ballistic missile system.
Russia's ability would likely be as limited, though much will depend on the number of ballistic missiles Ukraine can produce in a given year. If they also reach 700-800+, Russia will not be able to keep up.
Thanks, thats interesting to know. Perhaps you could do an assessment of Russia’s anti-ballistic missile systems and their technologies.
Many thanks!!
Unrelenting Ukrainian deep strikes against Russian petroleum production/export = steadily reducing Russian ballistic missile finances?
That's the idea! The problem with that approach is of course that while you may reduce the adversary's overall state capacity, you don't reduce its ability to shift resources. And Russia is clearly prioritizing BM production over other equipment.
Many thanks!
On TV Trump said US would give Ukraine licence to produce interceptors & yesterday rescinded it! Why does anyone believe him? If he had lost the election, the war would be over! Trump is in Putin’s pocket!
Licensed production would sadly also not be a quick fix, but would take years to establish.
That said, an initiative of that sort should have been taken years ago.
I wonder whether a “breakthrough approach” is possible. A missile wall / dome at the frontier? Laser technology? Air-based launches? Mobile short range defenses for main cities? Destroying Russian supply lines?
I’m no expert, but there must be *something* we can do except hope the interceptor situation improves in 2028.
The main goal of such a solution is to rebalance the production cost and production quantity between attacker and defender.
Who has thoughts?
N Korea and Iran sell ballistic missiles to Russia for use against Ukraine and nobody says a word about it. If Germany gave Ukraine 1 Taurus missile everyone would be saying that WWIII is about to happen. When is the last time Ukraine launched a Scalp missile? The difference in direct weapon and troop support from allies to Russia and Ukraine favours Russia by a substantial margin.
Thanks, very useful. But overall very scary too.
If I understand correctly, we could soon enter a world where Russia, North Korea and Iran have a lot more ballistic missiles at hand than Europe and US have in terms of interceptor capacity