05-12-2023, 09:27 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russias-kinzh...00257.html
The hoopla surrounding this, while understandable, is IMO over the top. As the article points out, there is nothing really surprising that a Patriot could destroy a Kinzhal missile. Unfortunately these articles don't explain the parameters of the problem. The Kinzhal is a "fast" missile. It is an air-launched ballistic missile, so it accelerates to a very high speed during the short time it's rocket engine operates. It may reach Mach 10 during this "boost phase" but subsequently slows down continuously due to air resistance. It can be "lofted" to increase range at the expense of speed. It has the ability to maneuver subject to it's aerodynamic limits, which are somewhat strict. The maneuvers are pre-programmed and therefore not in response to an attempted intercept. Obviously, it can exchange altitude for speed (and visa-versa) during the flight. The Kinzhal is derived from the Iskander and has similar "stealth" characteristics, i.e. not very.
The Patriot can intercept a Kinzhal much like it would an Iskander (and a SCUD back "in the day"). The intercepting missile simply has to get in front of the target at the "right time" and let the Kinzhal run/fall into it. If the geometry is such that the intercepting missile can do that, the Kinzhal can be destroyed. Otherwise, not. The Russians are correct that the Patriot isn't going to "win" a tail-chase with a Kinzhal. It isn't fast enough. The Patriot also doesn't know what the target is, so a "feasible" intercept trajectory may not actually work because the Kinzhal can dive on it's target before the Patriot reaches it. That is a difference from the SCUD that was totally ballistic and whose target could be accurately predicted. If the Kinzhal maneuvers during flight but after Patriot launch, it is "often" true the Patriot cannot compensate because there is now no "feasible" intercept course. If the maneuver is "early enough" or "late enough" in the intercept, it may not be effective. This is "just geometry" and there is nothing complicated about it. All that is necessary is to have the target in the "kill basket" at the merge.
The Patriot radar can detect Kinzhal missiles that it has no chance at all of of intercepting, just as was true with the SCUD. In general, the Patriot degenerates into a "point defense" system against ALL ballistic missiles, where it's coverage umbrella is centered around itself and whose diameter is a speed/altitude curve. The maneuver and dive capability of the Kinzhal degrades the kill probability from that of a purely "ballistic" target in a complex way that I am sure has been simulated to death. That number obviously is not zero. That number is also probably classified way above our level :-). It is improbable the Russians were utilizing the ability of the Kinzhal to maneuver because they would have believed it unnecessary. Using it undoubtedly is just "one more thing to go wrong" given Russian QC.
Of course, in any given engagement there is exactly one outcome. The fact one outcome appears to be positive doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. The Patriot radar can "see" the target (with help from TVM) for sure, and the Patriot interceptors have the ability to "reach" the target for sure, but not in arbitrary geometries. If you are part of the Patriot battery crew, you are quite safe unless somebody screws up.
In terms of outcomes I think it prudent to note that when the Patriot was first used to intercept SCUDs the initial evaluation was a very high kill probability. A subsequent "investigation" yielded a very low kill probability, attributing many of the "kills" to the SCUDs breaking up in flight. These were missiles fired by a US crew with all concurrent data available, and with the benefit of a long analysis time. In Ukraine, we have less concurrent data and possibly don't have the raw data/recordings from the Patriot battery itself. The initial confusion about "what actually happened" leads me to believe there is a good probability there is uncertainty still. We do know that Kinzhals crash on their own, and based on the larger data set of Iskander missiles they often don't reach "full speed". I also find it interesting the announcement used the phrase "downed" as opposed to "shot down" or "intercepted". Makes me believe there still is a bit of fog about what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/vigilance-acc...39804.html
Great example of how Ukraine is "winning the battle". The quick, efficient communication and execution is indeed the height of professionalism. Artillery has historically been the major killer of the enemy. Coupling that with the ability to "see the other side of the hill" provided by drones makes artillery much more lethal without requiring massive quantities of ammunition. Being infantry on the move in the open is never a good thing. In the past, moving at night was much safer. Not any more. Moving in an area devoid of direct observation was also safe. Today, with drones, there is no guarantee you are not being observed. The remaining possible weak point is the "decision loop" rendering the observations useless. Ukraine is showing here how to avoid that. Two different units (reporting chains) effecting this again shows how it is done.
This harks back to the WW II German officer who reported the most dangerous man on the European battlefield was an American soldier with a radio.
The hoopla surrounding this, while understandable, is IMO over the top. As the article points out, there is nothing really surprising that a Patriot could destroy a Kinzhal missile. Unfortunately these articles don't explain the parameters of the problem. The Kinzhal is a "fast" missile. It is an air-launched ballistic missile, so it accelerates to a very high speed during the short time it's rocket engine operates. It may reach Mach 10 during this "boost phase" but subsequently slows down continuously due to air resistance. It can be "lofted" to increase range at the expense of speed. It has the ability to maneuver subject to it's aerodynamic limits, which are somewhat strict. The maneuvers are pre-programmed and therefore not in response to an attempted intercept. Obviously, it can exchange altitude for speed (and visa-versa) during the flight. The Kinzhal is derived from the Iskander and has similar "stealth" characteristics, i.e. not very.
The Patriot can intercept a Kinzhal much like it would an Iskander (and a SCUD back "in the day"). The intercepting missile simply has to get in front of the target at the "right time" and let the Kinzhal run/fall into it. If the geometry is such that the intercepting missile can do that, the Kinzhal can be destroyed. Otherwise, not. The Russians are correct that the Patriot isn't going to "win" a tail-chase with a Kinzhal. It isn't fast enough. The Patriot also doesn't know what the target is, so a "feasible" intercept trajectory may not actually work because the Kinzhal can dive on it's target before the Patriot reaches it. That is a difference from the SCUD that was totally ballistic and whose target could be accurately predicted. If the Kinzhal maneuvers during flight but after Patriot launch, it is "often" true the Patriot cannot compensate because there is now no "feasible" intercept course. If the maneuver is "early enough" or "late enough" in the intercept, it may not be effective. This is "just geometry" and there is nothing complicated about it. All that is necessary is to have the target in the "kill basket" at the merge.
The Patriot radar can detect Kinzhal missiles that it has no chance at all of of intercepting, just as was true with the SCUD. In general, the Patriot degenerates into a "point defense" system against ALL ballistic missiles, where it's coverage umbrella is centered around itself and whose diameter is a speed/altitude curve. The maneuver and dive capability of the Kinzhal degrades the kill probability from that of a purely "ballistic" target in a complex way that I am sure has been simulated to death. That number obviously is not zero. That number is also probably classified way above our level :-). It is improbable the Russians were utilizing the ability of the Kinzhal to maneuver because they would have believed it unnecessary. Using it undoubtedly is just "one more thing to go wrong" given Russian QC.
Of course, in any given engagement there is exactly one outcome. The fact one outcome appears to be positive doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know. The Patriot radar can "see" the target (with help from TVM) for sure, and the Patriot interceptors have the ability to "reach" the target for sure, but not in arbitrary geometries. If you are part of the Patriot battery crew, you are quite safe unless somebody screws up.
In terms of outcomes I think it prudent to note that when the Patriot was first used to intercept SCUDs the initial evaluation was a very high kill probability. A subsequent "investigation" yielded a very low kill probability, attributing many of the "kills" to the SCUDs breaking up in flight. These were missiles fired by a US crew with all concurrent data available, and with the benefit of a long analysis time. In Ukraine, we have less concurrent data and possibly don't have the raw data/recordings from the Patriot battery itself. The initial confusion about "what actually happened" leads me to believe there is a good probability there is uncertainty still. We do know that Kinzhals crash on their own, and based on the larger data set of Iskander missiles they often don't reach "full speed". I also find it interesting the announcement used the phrase "downed" as opposed to "shot down" or "intercepted". Makes me believe there still is a bit of fog about what happened.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.yahoo.com/news/vigilance-acc...39804.html
Great example of how Ukraine is "winning the battle". The quick, efficient communication and execution is indeed the height of professionalism. Artillery has historically been the major killer of the enemy. Coupling that with the ability to "see the other side of the hill" provided by drones makes artillery much more lethal without requiring massive quantities of ammunition. Being infantry on the move in the open is never a good thing. In the past, moving at night was much safer. Not any more. Moving in an area devoid of direct observation was also safe. Today, with drones, there is no guarantee you are not being observed. The remaining possible weak point is the "decision loop" rendering the observations useless. Ukraine is showing here how to avoid that. Two different units (reporting chains) effecting this again shows how it is done.
This harks back to the WW II German officer who reported the most dangerous man on the European battlefield was an American soldier with a radio.