S-300V Army SAM System

All the best missile systems for air and land and sea have failure rates. Russian missiles have about the same success rate as missile systems from western and eastern MICs. The company and state test phases are no joke and in many circumstances Russia has more strenuous testing protocols than test programs of weapon systems from other nations.

I am not cheerleading here and I will speak the way I see things. There is a reason you guys are called doomers. Go to even paralay's website and when you translate it you will see the threads are flooded with cynical complaints. Many are legit but the spirit and intent is so critical and disrespectful that it ultimately shows these posters have either some hard left or right political leanings and are ideologically trapped in them. This critique of the harsh and constant criticism comes up fairly regularly on ruskie boards from what I have seen and indeed the amount of posters like this is strange.

The west as a monolith spends a literal order of magnitude more on infowar. I have to wonder sometimes if some of these doomers are spook handled and young or naive followers latch onto their messages. Not good. If you are objective and you live here in the west you see the exact opposite. Extremely naive and deluded followers of popular spook handled "influencers" who have really developed a belief system that western kit is lightyears ahead and cannot be defeated.

Archangel I dont think you are a spook but you have developed a distaste for your homeland because the state systems do not run on your opinions. You also have some sort of beef with the conflict and I think you didnt want to fight. Not judging but it seems to impact your posts and views. Wake up. You have to see this if you look at it objectively. Your emotions are blinding your reason.

For example the hangers for fighters and bombers. You dont think the Russian state and ten thousand other ruskies haven't thought of this and have major criticisms for the shortcomings in the military systems? For many years the Russian gov and MIC have had to hold up their massive army, navy and aerospace branches. Many important things were held off in order to keep to a budget. This is changing now because of this conflict. It takes years for these slow and complex systems to starr enacting major changes like hangers at all fighter and bomber space. But I assure you it will be done as so much more money is being infused into the gov military branches and MIC.

Not trying to fight you but your constant passive aggressive snipes are getting obnoxious. Replies require tedious posts like this. I worry though that you are so biased and passion driven for some personal reasons that you will not read or reason with posters here. Think, man. Use your reason. If what you do is reply bitterly and always criticize there must be some agenda you have. I mean isnt it clear? Read all this with fresh eyes and without malice. Without the grudges you have obfuscating your mind.

Russian missiles have about the same success rate as missile systems from western and eastern MICs.

That is not true.

The failure rates for a lot of HATO weapons has been quite high because a lot of it has been old stock or from storage or just cheaply made.

The ordinance with cluster warheads has been particularly bad because most cluster munitions have been in open storage scheduled for destruction for the last 10 years or so.

More importantly western munitions are designed to attack undefended targets and don't have jammers or defence penetration decoys and certainly don't manouver to evade air defences while attack targets like Russian and Soviet weapons do,

They also seem to be designed to not expect to be jammed either so rounds like Excalibr were a failure because they were so easily jammed and could not hit their targets... they have stopped using them.

Western drones have also be disappointing, with US military drones costing 30K or more are totally useless because they didn't expect them to be used against an enemy with the capacity to jam them. In comparison Russian drones costing $500 are destroying Abrams MBTs and Bradley BMPs...

The result is that of a dozen or more western weapons a significant percentage are failing or are getting jammed or shot down and in a large attack one or two weapons might reach a target, or the remains of one or two missiles might land on some civilians on a beach.

In comparison the Russian and Soviet weapons seem to get through to their targets most of the time. Scorch marks on a runway don't mean anything at all... you don't attack an airfield with a single 600-800 kg HE warhead... you would use the  cluster munition warhead that spreads fragments around the place tearing up everything in an area of four or six football fields.

Scorch marks on the ground on an airfield suggests there were planes there that caught fire and burned, or fuel trucks were caught in the open during a cluster munition attack. The anti runway munition model has rocket powered cluster munitions that accelerate into the ground and penetrate several metres under ground and then explode to damage the foundations of the runway and makes it much harder to simply patch up. From the air it would just look like small holes on the surface a few centimetres across... certainly not visible in that photo.

Sometimes missiles do miss, but if they were all missing Russia would not be where it is today...

There are always lessons to be learned but you have to be careful learning those lessons because learning the wrong lesson does not fix anything but can be expensive and time consuming.

Part of the reason Russian losses are so low is because they are properly dug in with overhead cover and fuel and water and other transfer pipes are dug in and hidden properly by engineer troops doing a good job, unlike Kievs engineers troops whose commanders clearly pocketed a lot of money that was supposed to go into defences and infrastructure.

Regarding hangars we are talking about front line airfields... there will be hundreds if not thousands of these and on each you would need to build hundreds of hangars and even if you did the people building those hangars would have to stop repairing Ukrainian cities and towns and building houses and infrastructure for the locals... the point is that even with hundreds of hangars on each airfield do you think a drone operator is just going to give up and walk away? Or will they wait to hit aircraft coming out of a hangar or even wait for the hangar doors to open and fly in and hit the aircraft inside the hangars?

Hangars don't protect aircraft from drones and you will never have enough and when the next gen aircraft come out do they still fit in those hangars or do you need to make more?

Big solid hangars are very expensive and still wont stop munitions designed to hit target in hangars.

The S-130 is an entire family of unguided rockets in a 5 rocket pod intended for shooting at aircraft inside hangars. They have two warheads.. one to punch through the hangar and a second to explode and set fire to everything inside the hangar... they have been operational since the 1980s.

A 250kg glide bomb with blow down most hangars and destroy any aircraft inside and all the equipment too.

When the solution costs billions of rubles and might not reduce losses by very much at all it is not a good solution.

The Russians will have thousands of aircraft on airfields at any one time in the region and we hear about successful attacks maybe once every 6 months or less often... it is not actually a problem yet, but western propaganda will claim it is because it is in their interests for the Russian to waste their time and resources making things they don't need because that will stop them making things that do make a difference like rebuilding the areas of the Ukraine they occupy, and also building fortifications for their own troops on and around the front line.

Look at how many times a Ukrainian fuel or ammo depot goes up near the front line and how often the same happens to Russian forces...

It is not just about who controls the air.

Isos is right on this and I'm not sure why it's being debated.

Because the only evidence of an Iskander missing a target that he showed is a satellite photo where it is impossible to identify which projectile was used in the attack.