[Goose]

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/402...tries.html

Interesting article on the long range drones with big warheads. The only major issue I have with this article is this

To further simplify production, the FP-5 does not employ technologies to reduce radar observability. Low-altitude flight that can follow the curvature of the terrain can help bypass ground-based radars and air defenses, but airborne radars mounted on fighters have long been capable of detecting such targets against ground clutter. That being said, while lacking stealth is a drawback, it is not a critical one, otherwise such a missile would not have been created with such a range and warhead in the first place.

In other words, we wouldn't have built it this way if it was a problem. Of course, that is not a "reason". In point of fact these cruise missiles are very easy meat for fighters controlled by an AWACS. They are "better" than a Shahed class drone in that they are much faster. That puts more pressure on the fighter to "get there" quickly. That is also why the Geran-3 is a more difficult target than a Geran-2. However, the immense radar cross section (coupled with high speed operation) of this new Ukrainian drone makes their detection and targeting by even a half-capable AEW system a certainty. The big plus for Ukraine is that Russia has so far been unable/unwilling to operate an anti-drone CAP with AWACS support. If they can't/don't, these drones could be a real problem. Unfortunately these are one of the few types of targets where an S-400 launcher a hundred km away (that cannot actually "see" the target) can fire a missile under A-50 control and take down the target with very high reliability. Russia has demonstrated that capability, but, again, can they do it at scale in an actual war.
 
Another plus for the new drone is that its large warhead can do enough damage that if even one gets through, that can be "enough". Targeting the Russian fuel supply is an important mission for Ukrainian drones. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...46898.html In this effort, Ukraine is following in the footsteps of the Combined Bomber Offensive against Germany in WW II. Postwar analysis has pretty much concluded that attacking electrical generation facilities would have been a much more effective choice. While 19% of Russian generation capacity is nuclear (therefore immune to attack), the rest is not. Refineries are actually much easier to repair than power plants. Power plants require both gas turbines and generators that are not "mass produced". There are also relatively few manufactures of these components, and they are very difficult to ship. Ukraine might want to consider using at least some of these weapons that way.

[Goose]

https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/402...tries.html

Interesting article on the long range drones with big warheads. The only major issue I have with this article is this

To further simplify production, the FP-5 does not employ technologies to reduce radar observability. Low-altitude flight that can follow the curvature of the terrain can help bypass ground-based radars and air defenses, but airborne radars mounted on fighters have long been capable of detecting such targets against ground clutter. That being said, while lacking stealth is a drawback, it is not a critical one, otherwise such a missile would not have been created with such a range and warhead in the first place.

In other words, we wouldn't have built it this way if it was a problem. Of course, that is not a "reason". In point of fact these cruise missiles are very easy meat for fighters controlled by an AWACS. They are "better" than a Shahed class drone in that they are much faster. That puts more pressure on the fighter to "get there" quickly. That is also why the Geran-3 is a more difficult target than a Geran-2. However, the immense radar cross section (coupled with high speed operation) of this new Ukrainian drone makes their detection and targeting by even a half-capable AEW system a certainty. The big plus for Ukraine is that Russia has so far been unable/unwilling to operate an anti-drone CAP with AWACS support. If they can't/don't, these drones could be a real problem. Unfortunately these are one of the few types of targets where an S-400 launcher a hundred km away (that cannot actually "see" the target) can fire a missile under A-50 control and take down the target with very high reliability. Russia has demonstrated that capability, but, again, can they do it at scale in an actual war.
 
Another plus for the new drone is that its large warhead can do enough damage that if even one gets through, that can be "enough". Targeting the Russian fuel supply is an important mission for Ukrainian drones. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...46898.html In this effort, Ukraine is following in the footsteps of the Combined Bomber Offensive against Germany in WW II. Postwar analysis has pretty much concluded that attacking electrical generation facilities would have been a much more effective choice. While 19% of Russian generation capacity is nuclear (therefore immune to attack), the rest is not. Refineries are actually much easier to repair than power plants. Power plants require both gas turbines and generators that are not "mass produced". There are also relatively few manufactures of these components, and they are very difficult to ship. Ukraine might want to consider using at least some of these weapons that way.