this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2024
264 points (96.5% liked)

World News

34956 readers
466 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] silencioso@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Great news for the industrial militar complex.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 9 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Does Russia even have 1000 operational aircraft at this point?

[–] flyboy_146@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think it's more about how wide the area to defend is.

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, but I wanted to make a joke at the RuAF's expense.

[–] flyboy_146@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Oh...my bad.

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

They are also used against hypersonic missiles the Russians have (kinzal etc.) and ballistics like s300 and s400.

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You might want to put the hypersonic part in quotes, they're basically just really expensive ballistic missiles that fly slightly faster. Considering their price tag, Russia would have probably been better off never developing them anyways

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yes, but afaik the hypersonic term applies to weapons over mach 4. NATO also adds additional requirements for hypersonics, such as manourerability. But they have enough speed to qualify.

[–] 100_percent_a_bot@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

One could argue that, sure but if only the speed is important the nazi V-2 would qualify as a hypersonic

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago

Yes exactly, also each icmb would qualify (during re-entry they also pickup "some" speed).. but it seems like hypersonic is sort of a marketing sticker thing, like "green" and "low fat".

The NATO hypersonics that are being worked on should be able to make evasive manouvera at speed, will be interesting to see.

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The S-300 and S-400 are anti-aircraft missile systems.

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 1 points 2 years ago

Yes they are, but in this conflict the Russians reconfigured some of them and use them in a ground to ground attackrole.

They had shortages of other tactical weapons and apparently a nice stockpile of these missiles.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Missile on missile violence?

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago

Defending everywhere requires more units than attacking anywhere.

[–] BradPittIsGod@lemmus.org -5 points 2 years ago

Yeah they are totally losing