Russian Cruise Missiles are ... too Many?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 окт 2022
- This video is sponsored by Masterworks!
masterworks.art/millennium7
Disclosure:
"Net Returns" refers to the annualized rate of return net of all fees and costs, calculated from the closing date to the sale date. IRR may not be indicative of paintings not yet sold, past performance is not indicative of future results.
Let's have a look at the Russian cruise missiles!
Join this channel to support it:
/ @millennium7historytech
Support me on Patreon / millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Mille...
Join the Discord server / discord
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
/ millennium7lounge
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
This video is sponsored by Masterworks!
masterworks.art/millennium7
Disclosure:
"Net Returns" refers to the annualized rate of return net of all fees and costs, calculated from the closing date to the sale date. IRR may not be indicative of paintings not yet sold, past performance is not indicative of future results.
Let's have a look at the Russian cruise missiles!
Join this channel to support it:
ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
One off donation with PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/Millennium7star
Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
Buy an Aircraft Model at Air Models! airmodels.net/?aff=173
----------------------------
Ask me anything!
Take part to the community Q&A clicking the link below!
forms.office.com/r/LNPQtf3Tc0
--------------------
Visit the subreddit!
www.reddit.com/r/Millennium7Lounge/
---------------------
All images and additional video segments contained in the Thumbnails and/or B-roll segments are used in strict compliance with the appropriate permissions and licenses required from the source and in accordance with the RUclips Partner Program, Community guidelines & RUclips terms of service.
guru nice music
By occasion - you have comments infested by hordes of Russian paid trolls. You should make them a proper purge.
You should also give a look at the french approach ; ASMP, ASMP-A (and future Camosis and Promethee evolutions)
Not to forget Exocets and also their evolutions..
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 As far as YT allows me, there is complete freedom of speech. I won't tolerate personal accusations and disrespect, but heated discussions are ok. Unfortunately, there are always too many comments to moderate and something always fall through the cracks.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Well, you even took one paid troll (login: Martin Kaufmann) at face value and tried to respond to it. While I'm highly for freedom of speech (even when it violates some taboo), I really think that it does not cover paid trolls any more than commercial spam.
Finally, someone who actually knows what he is talking about, not just usual "Russia is running out of missiles" for half of year now.
These things are not mutually exclusive. The Ukrainian estimate that Russia used 2/3 of its modern precision missiles is by no means unrealistic.
They’re still making them 24/7
@@T33K3SS3LCH3N Ukrainian estimates may be off. Maybe they have spies and informers within the Russian military who have access to military inventory.
@@Nyakes1 lol ukranian estimates are just propaganda.
@@Nyakes1 they have your money and that's it
This is SO much better than that officer at the Air Defence School that in 1994 told me I was completely wrong, because: "A cruise missile is NOT supersonic!" -- He probably wanted to tell me: "A cruise missile IS American. Others do not exist!"
....and such should protect our air bases at the coast of the North Atlantic.....
We humans often get hung up on labels, sometimes even attaching more importance to what something is called than what something does. It can make for "interesting times"...
Also you can decommission old weapons by shooting them at the enemy.
Originally, cruise missile meant a specific technology that previous missiles did not have: terrain following, and earth-hugging, highly evasive maneuvering along previously satellite-mapped courses. Before GPS, missiles and drones relied on inertial guidance, similar to WW2 designs for aircraft - that employed precision gyroscopes to determine course, accurate speed indicators, and of course pilot / navigator observations of landmarks. A big improvement over the stars and a clock. The cruise missile innovated a system that relied on terrain features that are independent of outside sources (other than perhaps weather and light) using an optical system and built-in computer to follow literal maps stored of the terrain along multiple optional courses. This system was much more accurate and much more failsafe than inertial systems, and GPS that are subject to jamming or spoofing of rather weak satellite signals. A skill that constitutes more than 1/4 of anti missile technology. GPS missiles and aircraft typically also must have inertial system backups for that reason. So - that was and is a cruise missile - by definition, they are low and slow and unjammable and highly evasive for the same distances as strategic bombers and inter-continental ballistic missiles before them. Like those, they are designed to deliver the world's most important payload - a megaton or so of destruction, directly on target.
Huh. Here I thought the V-1 was the first operational cruise missile. There were theoretical designs for "aerial torpedoes", but most of these did not get beyond a prototype stage.
The V-1's guidance was a pair of gyros and a magnetic compass (which had to be corrected pre-flight for declination). No GPS. No "nape-of-the-earth" flying, and damned little maneuverability. Your "definition" seems a bit too restrictive, and confined only to cruise missiles in the modren age.
@@horusfalcon I think you're right about that - it's basically that. But in the U .S. military it specifically was used to designate the Tomahawk - and that's what the Tomahawk was. So we have a bit of overlap and confusion. I agree that the V1 qualifies as the first cruise missile - maybe the first - I actually think they had radio controlled biplanes in WW1. So - that 's the more liberal definition. And in the U.S. since 1980's we''ve designated the capabilities of the Tomahawk as something special - and there are all varieties of specific application - even sub-launched anti-ship that you wouldn't think could follow terrain, but that has all that capability in spades to evade ship-anti-missile systems.
Also - I don't think cruise missile was ever used before the Tomahawk as a weapons system. Both I and my father in law were in that specific field - he even worked with Von Braun in the day. (He would be well over 100 and German expat.)
That is totally wrong. What you have pointed as main diffrence is guiding methods and these are of outmost importance but primary diffrence is propulsion. Balistic engines are essentialy rocket propelled, using solid or liquid propellent their propulsion is totally independent of athmosphere they fly. Cruise missiles have a jet engine, they are Basiclly autonomous aircrfats alebeit with guiding assistance. I am not disputing importance of guidence but if that is primary classification then today balistic vs Cruise missiles would be essentialy the same thing while in reality they differ a lot. For decades Soviet Union insisted on ballistics in fact they have only late started to design Cruise missiles... Like 1980's or so, their initial missiles were quite inaccurate though very powerfull and massive and operationaly capable since they mounuted them on a trucks in like 8 or so of them effectively making super powerfull balistic missile launchers which though unprecise could swiftly attack enemy with massive fire. What Russia has showed with hypersonic weaponry is that guidence is solved problem for not just them but everybody else and that plasma generated by hypersonic vehicles are much more challanging problem of today warfare. US developed JASSM which can fly 950 kms without GPS. No one these days need GPS on less then 1000 km
@@milanradovanovic3693 Okay, that argument is like a scientific nomenclature. Good argument. I was referring to the actual use of the term. At least in my lifetime and experience. No one would ever have called a drone (that meets the propulsion criteria) a cruise missile. Rather we looked at the first use of the term, and saw the Tomahawk, and its features were propulsion = turbojet, guidance = terrain mapping, etc. It was all very impressive as a package. It was a "cruise missile" - not a "cruise drone" or something else. So if you are from somewhere else - Russia I take it - you would have a different experience. Cinema, Cigarettes, and Automobiles - same thing.
Okay, you're saying that inertial guidance is no longer .5% of the distance travelled - maybe it's .05%? or .005%. The thing is, for the money, GPS is the same price as inertial. It's simpler, etc. And those price tags - I still can't believe it. So I'm willing to say you're right - but the cost isn't a major difference.
Placebo.
@@DivineMisterAdVentures My point is that while US had tecnoligical edge it mattered to have cruise missiles as precision edge over USSR. Strike preciselly and you would do more damage then those crazy Soviets with their monster rockets. Now Russia has given US a homework to do. Since they have at least partial sceintific edge, in hypersonic tech, now US must chase them. US did research on these kind of weapons long ago but most folks dont understand that there is huge diffrence between doing some exeriments in lab and deploying it as a weapon. Also Russia showed mastery with Avanvard glided vehicle. Propulsion is not an issue, US has it, hypersonic materials also even if they dont have them developed at a satisfactory level US Will get there soon, but there is no proof neither a roumor that US has a techlogy capable of guiding an maneuvarable hypersonic vehicle s at those speed... Some rumors said from russian science solved that problem impressively by using inner liquid to maneuver Avnagard and not by wings... Dont know the theory I am just an dumb microelectronics engeneer but they definetly made some expensive us armoured ships, both subs and carriers defeatable in highly cost efective way. Another thing very little people talk about is that Russians are planing to use 3m22 Zircon as a replacement for last stage of Bulava subs ICBM and that used in that way they can target US subs even when they are under water.... No that is imoressive if it is true as roumor goes
Russians have a range of cruise missiles, that suit their target & opponent. If opponent has little AA, they use cheap ones. If target is reinforced, they use high yield penetrators. If opponent has good AA, they use supersonic or hypersonic.
Importantly, Russian weapons make are state owned companies. They do not sell to the Russian military for profit. So the typical cruise missile that US pays $2M for, the Russian industry supplies it to their military for 1/10th that cost (no profit!). The only allow profit when Russia exports these weapons, typically 1/3 to 1/2 the price of US equivalent.
I have trouble keeping up with all the models of Russian missiles too :P
Mostly I remember them by capability, and I largely forget their designations. Except for the most stand-out examples.
I think that part of the reason for the variety, is a learning curve though. They had very high goals for their missiles, so they ended up with a very large number of missiles which don't meet all of the goals, but do meet this or that requirement. Could almost view it as "high volume prototyping". Whenever 'some' improvement was made, they'd put at least a limited number into service. If the west produced a limited number (to be put in service) of every missile prototype, it would be a similar zoo hehe. I recently brushed up on the history of the ASRAAM... there's over a dozen missiles in that convoluted design process, before arriving at the design in production now.
Part of the difference is the west likes to use letter suffixes, or block numbers. I mean, when you say AIM-9... you're really talking about a whole family of missiles spanning some 60 years now. Perhaps it could just be said that Russia has a different approach to naming conventions?
I absolutely love how the comment section is accusing him of being biased towards both sides
By the look of this video, I think investing in Russian cruise missiles is probably a good idea.
Yes can I place a order with u 30 of each plse 😂😅😂
the Geran-2 is manufactured in russia with some modifications over the iranian version.
usin not GPS but GLONAS, only engine is iranian made actualy
@@kustovas The engine is a license of a chineese license of a german product. So it's possible they get the engines from the chineese.
The cost of missiles is so much lower than aircraft. When you consider development, production and deployment they have many advantages over fixed wing aircraft outside of cost. Developing a missile is simple to do as you can fail many times before you get it right. Production quality does not have to be as high as no pilot is at risk if the missile fails due to a bad part. Time to produce is also much lower A missile may have 1000 different parts to make each one, and aircraft has 10s of thousands of different parts to make. Storage and launch can be done by truck, ship aircraft, No need for runway no need for a hanger to store, and maintenance should be virtually zero.
Also you dont need to train hundreds of pilots spending dozens of thousands of dollars an hour to fly an aircraft
Exactly!
But after you achieved air supremacy, an aircraft could be used multiple times to pound the enemy with dumb bombs while missiles only once
@@comradeblin256 Yeah, but top aircraft flight hour cost is around 30 000$, the munitions is very expensive, pilots are very expensive
@@comradeblin256 if only there was some kind of missile to deny air superiority...
Not only cruise Missiles, but tanks and light vehicles as well, it's very good contents to add for Warthunder...... ))))))
Such variety is good although up to a point. One must be careful though to avoid wasting and complicating efforts in procurement, maintenance and training with such a vast array of weapon systems.
Another informative video M7.
US just usually keep same name adding block 1 block 2 etc while Russia often gives different name in the same situation
Or better still call it M1 and be done with it ...🤣
the way NATO forces were deployed in the first cold war wasn't really defensive.
NATO is not now and never has been a defensive organization
What do you mean? Nato was designed to stop tqnks waves attacking through the Fulda gap.
NATO was created to keep the Russians out, the US in, and the Germans down.
Thank you again, for: actual research, rigorous analysis, expert consultation, quality explication and logical explanation.
he is a terrible speaker
Sorry!
the russians embraced and fell in love with the missile doctrine since the 60s and 70s....when they realise due to economic and technological constraints,their opponent mainly USA were beginning to outshine them in all fields in the matter of war except for a few niches.......missiles.
missiles became their holy grail answer to everything,missiles were not only cheaper platforms,they could be launched from anywhere, in this case land since Russia is mostly a land army without the need for expensive airforces and navys and armour......missiles allowed vastly poorer and underarmed militaries to project substantial punching power even against richer and more advanced militaries......
since its early promising days of the v2 rocket,russians had a great deal of interest in the missile and rockets
missiles became a cheaper alternative yet highly effective countermeasure to everything the west fielded....from SAM missiles during the vietnam war,to anti tank shoulder mounted missiles during the yom kippur war and lebanon war, to the s300 and s400, to icbms and anti ship missiles...to kornet atgms in the 2000s......missiles saw incredible success in every theatre of war from the cold war,to vietnam,to palestine and the gulf wars....
which is why i laughed when western media kept harping about their stupid stinger missiles.
Russia is de facto the king of missiles of the world.
If Russia dont run out of missile first
This is a falacy. According to studies conducted by the CIA the soviet union was ahead of the US in at least 50% of technical and engineering/military fields, (especially in missiles), and would surpass the US by the 1980's (which it did in many ways). The soviet union and "the russians" are two different entities (and if you disagree, then you are a hypocrite). When the soviet union was broken up, only then did Russia invest more heavily into missiles than any other field due to the economic constraints. What people don't understand is under soviet rule there were no constraints, because "funding" wasn't a problem unlike capitalist nations who needed to approve budgets for every screw and bolt. The issue was intellectual resources and the fact that they simply didn't have enough engineers to cover so many different fields as well as the fact that due to decades of oppression it was nearly impossible to hand out clearance to such projects without risking leaks to espionage.
The rest is pretty correct. Russia (and the soviet union before it) has been extremely capable in missile design and manufacturing, especially since the majority of ground launched missiles do not need radar terminal guidance and can use trigonometry vector calculations based on start point and velocity and a compass.
While the US wastes time sinking billions into high end computers to run their rotting f35 fleet, russia is making cheap ti-84 calculator chips work in missiles.
@@singular9 lol sure f35 is garbage and Russia is a super power lol
Since the 40s I would say, katyusha "stalins organs" - grad - cheap, effective, stores well, little training, etc etc. The Artillery has a special place in sov/Rus doctrine, including tactical and strategic Missiles. They can pull 1980s Uragan Missiles out of a warehouse and hit targets, whereas nato 1980s expensive gear - A10? - is both obsolete and unusable. Sneaky, right?
@@singular9 could you share the Cia study you mentioned
Good job as usual.
Congrats on the sponsorship. Imho your sub number is rising unexplainably slowly considering the quality of the content - so it's nice to see someone supporting you.
While America focused on shoving things in bottoms, the Russians developed a variety of ways to maintain directional flow. #ExitOnly
Love this objective look into the Russian MIC. Excellent work.
It's not that the Russians have so many. It's the USA that has so few.
correct, US depend on airpower, if US loses air superiority in a battlespace, they are very much F-ed.
@@lagrangewei not f-d. Simply doomed to experience full scale ground war for once.
Russia has so many different weapons because it is only one country facing about 30 cuontries. Som countries are closer to it's borders while other countries are very far. Thefoere, they must have these variably numerous weapons to deat with each specific situation.
All these while the Russians are the one who started the wars on its small neighbors but this time they made a mistake for taking on Ukrainians.
@@warpaulgundol7560 You're in denial as always. Russia had no way but to attack Ukraine. Ask yourself why, and dig deeper to see why.
@@warpaulgundol7560
Ukraine would've been done in the first month into the war if it wasn't for all the western countries' aids.
One interesting lesson from this war has been that simple kamikaze-type drones are more cost effective than missiles.
Shahed is a cheap cruise missiles, its not a suicide drone...its not a drone at all...
I only found your channel a couple weeks back, but I'm loving your logical approach to problems/questions, really enjoying the content, thanks.
Great analysis that I haven't yet found equalled anywhere else on the internet.
Glad to have the robo assistant appear ----- He should have a larger role
Good job!!
Greetings from Belgium 🇧🇪
Very interesting video, once more.
Soviet doctrines always was to use lots of RAKETA RAKETA and that pays out now...
they are testing everything they have secretly on the ukro dummies
My summary:
-Different enemy than west (west itself)
-So different tactical or strategic needs
- therefore Different combat systems
- Different missiles for that varied platforms
- Last but not less, own tecnology, (part due different aproach to science and technology. Paradigmatic of this was Mig-29 without Fly by wire equals or outperformed wes planes in maneuverability
The fountain off all knowledge 🤣- great
The cope in the comments is incredible. It's kind of funny how one cannot post a video about any kind of military technology without bots and shills appearing to repeat some schizophrenic rhetoric. At least they provide engagement for the channel.
Another marvelous video by the way. I really live your presenting style. You come across as a really nice bloke :)
It's really about how smart you can deal with a small military budget. If you have too much budget you get bureaucratic and lazy and only start to benefit the large military conglomerates. It's a weird way of corruption.
Kalibr is the beast,is so good in modern warships
Well structured and researched video!
The development of Soviet SMG's offers insight. The production lines of the three successive models were kept on to increase the total output.
Nothing is weird about stating a 100% defensive military has a defensive doctrine
100% defensive? Tell that to the Poles, to the Czechoslovakians, to the Romanians, the East Germans, and countless of the other satellite states the Russians (admittedly the Soviets) invaded and conquered, just like they are invading Ukraine now. Show me what conceivable threat the Ukrainians posed that justified this current invasion. This is about resources... The Donbass region is where all of Ukraine's access to the sea is, and where all their oil and natural gas are.
@@horusfalcon gladly I will! Are you fond of Adolf Hitler or something? And what threat did Ukraine pose? They were openly persecuting russians in the country and threatening to get nukes to use to destroy Moscow. They refused to stop any of this. I guess you think America should never have fought the nazis in Europe. What did nazi Germany do to the USA?
Russians always loved missiles
nevermind the critics dope presentation
Great video. I appreciate all of the work you put into these. 👍 Sucks about all of the bots in the comments, but maybe it helps the algorithm, so 🤷♂
Thanks for this analysis, sir. Are you looking to analyse new Iranian Drone and Missiles capabilities analysis?
I think you got it very right, what Russia does in current conflict is exactly that - prevent enemy from using any aviation, shoot down their missiles drones etc and rely heavily on distant weapons like artillery and missiles to do the most work. There are many reports from receiving side that they lost half a squad in a few days and never even saw any Russian in that time.
Thanks for making sense.
Great Explanation!
Russian cruise missile model although a lot, it is much less than Chinese Drone model. Last time I counted, China has more than 3000 models and counting....
With all these types of missiles why did the western media ever think they’d run out?!?….
Cause western news is propaganda.
I told the west from the beginning Russia have missile they can use around Europe like picket fence
The west is spreading propaganda about russia bt the truth is catching up with them bcoz russia is fighting day and night.
Doesn't matter how much you like western media, you need to understand it lies 90% of the time.
@@Aknayelth and 90% of their audience seem to be paid bots.
Nice solid analysis, you got a new sub.
Always solid work
The same reason an American citizen has so many different types of guns. 🤷🏿♂️
Makes you wonder where that 800 Billion military budget goes!!!
pockets of military industrial complex
Miami mansions
increased models allows for increased strategic complexity, higher strategic complexity is beneficial when fighting a less complex opponent, as it allows for more operational variation increasing unpredictability/asymmetry. High complexity is hard to balance with the increased logistical planning required but with new command and control innovations, universal symmetry required for cohesive strategy of so many parts is possible.
Again, I didn't see this video in my recommends. I had to look for it.
Just FYI for your traffic tracking.
Thanks, this is interesting.
It appears in my recommendation
wonder if more modern guidance systems can be retrofitted to old missiles?
Often the guidance system and its installation to an old tech costs more than building a new entirely. It is possible for sure, just not always worth it. Especially when the old system is still good enough for a task.
Missiles like most things also have shelf life. Once it expires the missile is either recycled or used up during training or at a conflict. For example the last Soviet bomb stocks from WWII were used up during their last year in Afghanistan. The US doesn't have such problem, they are always at war somewhere. :(
it has been demonstrated before, look at JADAM, although the upgrade package is atrociously expensive, its better than designing a new bomb/missile/rocket from scratch
From inertial guidance to addition of GPS or radar seeking would be easy. But the adding of camera and target graphic recognition and AI tracking/targeting would be difficult.
This is how kh22 gets modernized into kh32
Thanks for the enlightening video.
its the platforms, that launch the missles that are targeted, bases will be anilated before the bomber can take off, thus hypersonic missles can hit fuel depots leaveing aircraft on the ground, this is why weapon ranges are so important, platforms must be anilated before they reach weapon ranges.
The big question is what stockpiles and what production capacities do the Russians have?
plenty
Guarded secret 🤫
@@Spaceman719 What are intelligence services for if they can't figure that out?
Russia knows the west wants to destroy them since 70 years. They are prepared and i am very sure chine helps to produce an endless ammount of everything russia needs.
He: "Russian Cruise Missiles are ... too Many?"
Me: How many versions of T-72 are there?
Too many! 😆
Yeah, even the T90 is just a T72 with new electronics, reactive armor, etc.
@@shaider1982 This statement is so silly...
Dude, Armata is still not in service, but Russians already have T-15 and T-14 versions on it's base
Another very interesting and though provoking evaluation.
Excellent… as usual!
And india learnt from Russians. Just look at their guided missile program
true it s such a sad sea of nafo trolls in the comments
Great variety, makes it possible to select targets and hit them depending on their importance. Some targets will be hit by X-101 some by VESPA(Geran2)
ehm, did you mean shahed-136?
@@stariyczedun were u living under a rock for the first 6 months of the war ?
Vespa?
some by a long range cruise washing machine
@@artemvektor1 Yes, used by suicide bombers who arrive on mopeds.
I agree it will come down to this new class of weapon system in the end.
Very interesting, it's amazing how you tend to look for why and not just the surface level tech and specification of equipment.
The reason the doctrine.
The way you covered China's drones none other did to my knowledge.
There is always more to Mach numbers and payload.
rather than decommisioning, they saved them... and now theyre using them up
Thanks!
Thank you to you! Much appreciated!
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Good work ! Keep it coming :)
You have a sponsor! Congratulations.
Thank you for introducing Masterworks to us. I can finally in invest in Fine Arts.
It is not the first. I don't get too many because the channel is still not that popular.
@@Millennium7HistoryTech your logo is not centered. It gives people the impression of amateur channel.
@@bastadimasta I am sure that is the reason
You missed an opportunity to use that Jim Carrey high speed writting for you searching scene xD
A better question is why the U.S. didn't build more cruise missiles?
Because its pointless. US doctrine is far superior. Win the war immediately and go home. No need to shoot cruise missiles at random cities for months
@@freedomordeath89 The U.S. bombed Kosovo for months to no effect and Vietnam for years. I'm not asking about duration but the preferred distance of bombardment. Russia likes stand off capability and the U.S. seems to find the idea peculiar.
@@freedomordeath89 This worked very well in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ha ha
@@gerhardbenade5869 now explain me the meaning of that meme. You are all childish russian fanboys. I dont care about the US. I'm just a military analysts. The US army in Iraq and Afghanistan performed well, they WON in less than 1 month. After the 1st month there wasnt any enemy army left. The TERRORIST GUERRILLA is a different thing. It cant be uprooted.
How is TERRORISM GUERRILLA comparable?
Even russia cant fully defeat terrorist guerrillas in Cechenia and Syria. So wtf does this have to do with a rREAL WAR PERFORMANCE?
@@freedomordeath89 attack the natives, natives don't shoot back
First time an advert interested me...
Missiles have different goals and different tasks. There are expensive packages that use artificial intelligence and data exchange systems between rockets, there are cheaper versions of rockets. There are missiles capable of destroying protected targets, such as underground bunkers, there are missiles capable of destroying satellites. Even for MLRS systems, there are many different types of missiles, from the most common to missiles with drones inside.
Good job sir
I want to invest in a nice oil painting of a cruise missile
Another dimension of this topic is the intelligence and propaganda battle during the Cold War. As one part among other efforts, Soviet leadership made the conscious decision to develop a large variety of systems and even have some fake development of additional systems on top of those in order to create an intimidating challenge for Western planners, analysts, and military officers. Some of this is already pretty well known as the pure propaganda fake efforts.
What is less well known is that they also chose to maximize variety of real systems in part as a counter intelligence effort. This created a challenge for analysts to get complete and accurate information about spotted Soviet systems since they could have a wide variety of potential variations and subsystems in those particular units at those locations.
It also created a challenge for planners to develop and acquire systems to counter all the potential Soviet systems directly since first just knowing all of the list requires time and effort to keep up to date and then choosing the right counters for all of these became a complex problem to solve.
It furthermore was a challenge for military officers for similar reasons but with the added difficulty of making immediate important decisions from incomplete information and consequences that could be dire if things went wrong. Intimidating them with this confusion was a stated goal and while the effectiveness of it may be debatable, the Soviets placed high value on intimidation and battle of wills.
From the Soviet point of view, this was an extension of psychological warfare that could be used in place of or to prepare for kinetic conflicts. They knew that they could not always challenge the West effectively on spending or technology but they could use their skills at propaganda and intelligence to try to get in the heads of Western leadership to create enough confusion through variety and obfuscation to be of political or military value.
It appears that Russia has continued to use many Soviet strategies and tactics and this includes placing high importance on the propaganda and intelligence battles. To that end, it makes sense for them to have retained a high variety of missiles and other systems even if it is suboptimal from an internal efficiency standpoint. They are still trying to win through intimidation and confusion as strategic tools and that still may have some influence on their military asset related decisions.
As always you do research, think and rethink
Another factor could be component availability. I.e. the change in supply would force a certain amount of redesign around the fall of the ussr.
Also I wonder if the American arguably broken procurement process could be favoring existing designs rather than new designs.
Shaheed means martyrdom
Russia has always excelled in missile and rocket technology; whereas the US would rather spend its R&D on high-tech planes and ships.
You cannot spread missile production to 50 states but you can spread a really really complicated plane to factories around the US to make all states happy. But it's the hell of a reason of selecting a weapon and military doctrine. The US lost I believe some 5000 planes in Vietnam to Russia SAM's. Some 5000 airmen killed. If they used missiles it would have been 4000 less (some where helicopter pilots).
US company money goes to general-turn advisors. They pay them 7 digits per month.
@@joem0088 not only by SAM's, but by AA defence system in general. USSR sent SAM's, AA guns, radars, interceptors, ammunition and specialists.
You missed the Naval Strike Missile in the US inventory, but your point remains valid...
Small slow and short range A pop gun
@@wst8340 I don't know about that... It's very stealthy and therefore extremely difficult to detect. It travels at high subsonic speeds (>0.9 mach), like most western ASM. It's got a range of 250ish km, which is further than Harpoon and 2/3 the range of LRASM. And the 115kg penetrating warhead is more effective than the warhead on Harpoon even though it's only half as large. So... Not sure I'd agree with your assessment...
The missile is good - the problem is US missile production rates, it’s terrible
@@dexlab7539 I think these are still only manufactured in Norway... At least for now; they might end up being licensed for manufacture in the US. But your point is valid for both the US and the other Western Nations: the weapons industries are largely privatized so production capacity is a matter of profit and loss, not national security. And *excess* capacity in peacetime is expensive to maintain. And unless/until wartime production is implemented, the production rates will continue to be inadequate.
I also wonder how much the variety came down to the political influence and patronage of the various Sovietbera design bureaus and the companies that succeeded them.
Good video, thanks for the brain food!
Thanks Luigi, for your so in depth and funny presentation of military weapons!
Who is Luigi?
@@Millennium7HistoryTech Brother of Mario, my guess.
The approach mKes sense. However you can't use helicopters for CAS against modern or even old SAM'S. They are an easy target.
Excelente. Como es usual
that's because USSR invested heavly in this regard & US is lagging behind russian in this domain
You have some interesting notions about why the Russians are keen on having a variety of weapons - it's almost like they want to have the right tool handy for every job!
I'm surprised there is no mention of the Tomahawk family of American cruise missiles. Many of them are still in service and still undergoing modification/upgrades, including possible hypersonic and thermobaric configurations.
Jack of all trades is an American mindset
@@Joshua_N-A Actually, I learned the phrase "Jack of all trades; master of none" in America. Methinks you paint with too broad a brush, friend.
How do you invest small token in masterworks thanks
Go with high market csp, stay safe, do not loose money.
It'd be cool if you did a video on what level of chip manufacturing and desigb is required and used by russia for its latest missiles and weapons or is their manufacturing and or design of chips too old in tech???
May I ask where your assumption that Russia has 50% of its arsenal left and that they are saving their more advanced weapons? Surely the path they have taken now would be explained both by Russia pretty much running out of modern missiles as well as if they saved them. We have also seen wreckage of missiles with build dates that fall during the conflict in Ukraine. Why do you think its one over the other?
@@sebastianforbes1 Good response
Dream on!!
If Amerika can not use zelenski anymore they remove them. Zelenski is a actor and used as a doll!
And i must recognize, he do very good job!
Btw!!
I HAVE A MESSAGE FOR YOU!!
On RUclips: "On patrol with the far right national militia" from the BBC!!!
SMELLS VERY HARD TO NAZISM!!!
Greetings from Belgium!!🇧🇪
Ukraine is currently besieging Moscow. Putin is hiding in his mega bunker complex with 15000 personnel ready to defend him at all costs. Reports claim he has just turned the family tree into the family ladder in a personal pursuit of creating the perfect incest-baby. 86% of Russian soil is salted with the isotope cobalt-60 and the civil society has regressed back to a state of18th-century starvation economy, in which human or "strange" meat is sold under the counter. Ukraine just cured cancer, the fusion energy hurdle and is currently colonizing Pluto. Just in! Ukraine went back in time and assassinated Hitler!
Piotr Butowski's deduction on the Kh-101 build date is not necessarily correct. The chip might have been replaced during maintenance and it is not a guarantee that the older weapons are always used first.
This is the opinion of several analysts, including RUSI and the Pentagon (between 40 to 50% of stocks). The estimates published by the Ukrainian MoD are not much worse than 50%, and we may consider them positively biased like most of the news coming from the two sides directly involved.
A fact, though, is that Novator has hired 500 people in April to build Kalibrs...
@@sebastianforbes1 I've heard on cnn they have run out of snow.
KALIBR missile in particular has been impressive in Ukraine, Russia has made strides in cruise missile development the last decade or so.
You should also add NATO cruise missiles to the US count. These are missiles the US does not need to produce, but is at their disposal.
The historic book: "Sputnik and the Soviet space challenge" can give some clues. USSR had competing design bureaus with significant overlap and infighting, so not surprising you have many variants, or solutions, to the same problem. Combine that with autocratic inefficiency and you get the "perfect storm". In the end it'll dry their resources up. In contrast - in US they have understood this and are consolidating around fewer weapon systems. Besides manufacturing, you can imagine how much easier it makes logistics in a war theater.
Sounds about right: look at their current tank production zoo: T-72-based variants (T-90 is a advanced version of T-72 so all T-90somethings are all in this category), T-14 and T-80 (the latest production was just last year). Or helicopters: why would you need to produce Mi-28 and Ka-52 for the similar role AND still keep producing latest versions of Mi-24 for almost the same role? The worst part is that they know it is an issue: USSR had issues keeping up with the T-64, T-72, T-80 zoo which were the tanks for the same role, same concept and same generation but very different to supply and maintain.
And the US has monopolies producing crap due to complete lack of competition.
@@alexx86hater thats like saying why does america still operate f16,f15 n f18 when they have b-2 , f22 n f35.
@@hemendraravi4787 F-15 & F-16 different planes, created for different tasks. F-18 is naval airplane. Same with the F-22 & F-35. T-64, T-72 & T-80 -- tanks of the same generation, for the same tasks, one was developed in Kharkov, the other in Nijnii Tagil and the 3rd one is in Leningrad. No conceptual difference.
Same with Mi-28 & Ka-52, where Ka-52 was developed from the Ka-50, winner of the Mi-28/Ka-50 competition. Yet b/c a whole lot of "reasons" Mi-28 entered production with the promise of Longbow...whoops... Mi-28N, which later on was downgraded to almost basic Mi-28 and then when Mil did not deliver all of a sudden Ka-52 entered production. Both of these helos are for the same mission, same role, however there is a quite interesting "under the carpet games" and this is why Mi-28 is produced. And don't get me started on Mi-24 with failed "flying APC" concept, where since Soviet operation in Afghanistan most of the time Mi-24 was used in attack role and doing sweeps where Mi-8 was carrying the troops. Yet for whatever reason it is still produced...
,
actually in all accounts, each branch of the russian military consolidates and standardizes (or are projected to) around their respective cruise missile
kalibr for the navy, kh-101 for the air force, iskander-k for the army (older legacy systems not counted)
each of them is supported by the logistic chain of each service, which are already seperated and independent of each others
in each service, all the other weapons are older weapons, while there are no greater than one new standardized weapon entering service replacing the older ones
People accusing you of being both a CIA plant and a Russian propagandist is always funny.
Not FSB, not CIA, but a secret third thing (Italian).
the "third thing" and "Italian" in one sentence… where have I heard of that before?
People always want that gotcha moment
It's definitely Mossad😁
the guy is italian
italy seems mad sus right now, previously it was even outright friendly with russia & china
(one previous episode about chinese a2a missiles mentioned technology transfers from italian a2a missiles, which in turn is an italian copy of the american aim-120 amraam
Russia is not even using the high tec Missile yet they are clearing the old Stoke i think
No, they're using plenty of Kalibr missiles, mixed in with old stuff.
@@Lexoka nato AA systems turned out to be exceptionally weak. so old stuff had to be cleaned first
@@aleksandrpulnikov684 AA systems in Ukraine are almost all from the Soviet Union.
@@Lexoka those which were working are indeed from the Soviet Union. but Russians are taking them out. besides, there is a shortage of AA missiles. so there are quite a few nato replacements by now.
My guess for why NATO don't send it's modern AA to Ukraine is: they know already it will be ineffective against russian shelling, so they don't want to lose face and embarrass themselves in the eyes of the world. Now they have a proper excuse that they sent old sh*t so it doesn't work well, not because they are just weak.
I love Otis , so smart
But just like a guy once said:
"First front in a war, is the economic **proceeds to take ship for ransom** "
1 word, tactical, they all have a job
Sounds like a parts sourcing and maintenance nightmare 🎃
Plus more training demands
@@mickvonbornemann3824 💯
@@mickvonbornemann3824 and now they’re buying Iranian stuff 🤪
@@petersouthernboy6327 Iranian stuff is much better then overrated Turkish Bayraktar
@@artemvektor1 no it’s not.
Not just that they must retain some missiles for N use.. but these missiles must be of the very best service quality possible... Indeed I think that the actual number of N warheads servicable in Russian stocks must be very much lower than western estimates.. in fact I believe that entire generations of N warheads have been effectively withdrawn due to maintenance and deployment overheads.. with only the very latest maybe +1 type having actual N availability for operations without substantial reinvestment that is not going to happen...
Do not be scared! Everything that has been done in Russia will work in half a century ... Soviet tanks standing on pedestals in Europe can be removed from their pedestals and Berlin can be retaken ... there are more of them than modern Germany has Leopards ... Or better to London!
There are two other potential reasons why Russia kept these weapons. First the more systems that Nato had to produce solutions too the more complex their defense computers would have to be to identify them. Second by retaining old weapon systems Russia could field reserves that were already trained on them for several decades just as now they have brought back into the reserves men up to the age 60 with certain skills, like operating such systems like the MiG 31 and its missile system now in use in the SMO or the Shilka antoi air units reinforcing the front lines.
Shilka > Reinhmetall twin Gepard 35