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

World News

38977 readers
2267 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Does Russia even have 1000 operational aircraft at this point?

[–] flyboy_146@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] cygnus@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] flyboy_146@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago
[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 6 points 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months 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 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 1 points 10 months 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 10 months ago

Missile on missile violence?

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 months ago

Defending everywhere requires more units than attacking anywhere.