Kiev Is Burning

[alejandro_]

6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you had read the link I included,

https://en.defence-ua.com/news/what_is_the_real_price_of_russian_missiles_about_the_cost_of_kalibr_kh_101_and_iskander_missiles-4709.html

you would see the authors also criticize the estimate, but suggest there is good evidence they are significantly lowballing the price in many cases. For example,

'Now about the "Oniks". Media use the cost of $1.25 million, while ignoring that in India, its localized and updated version Brahmos costs $4.85 mln per missile. This is according to the Indian Business Standard newspaper who managed to take a photo of the contract signed this September.

Preliminary estimates say the older versions of Brahmos with a range of 300 km cost India $3.2 to $3.5 million per missile. This number looks more like an actual worth of a supersonic missile with an active homing head.'

Or,

I would take everything about Russia in defence-ua with a ton of salt. Using the cost of Brahmos to estimate that of Oniks is not a good idea because by setting up production of parts in India, royalties, and creating the infrastructure the cost will be noticeably higher.

This has been raised in India before, the cost of a Su-30MKI build in Russia is 40 million $, while in India is 62 million. This is for 2019 when production had been going on for years.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Then its beholden on people to provide better estimates, because thats the only ones we got. Im certainly not buying that Iskander costs less than a Scud C, not on present evidence.

[Josh]

Any of the cost estimates posted put Iskander as a viable option for an MLRS. More over you defend based on what your side would lose, not the damage that you would do. I’m sure most of the Shahed shoot downs use munitions more expensive than the target.

[RETAC21]

19 minutes ago, Josh said:

Any of the cost estimates posted put Iskander as a viable option for an MLRS. More over you defend based on what your side would lose, not the damage that you would do. I’m sure most of the Shahed shoot downs use munitions more expensive than the target.

Pertinent to the discussion, with proper motivation, benefits are waived. For the Manhattan project: "To build the facilities at Hanford, Du Pont waived all profits and asked only for reimbursement of expenses on a cost-plus-fixed fee basis. The fixed fee was one dollar. During the war, corporate executives routinely worked for the government on a “dollar-a-year” basis. Such was the political climate of the time."

[alejandro_]

If you look at the DSCA website the contracts approved for HUIMARS go into the hundreds of millions (See below). Sur, they include ammunition, some maintenance and other equipment, but destroying one with an Iskander sounds like a good deal.

[Stuart Galbraith]

33 minutes ago, Josh said:

Any of the cost estimates posted put Iskander as a viable option for an MLRS. More over you defend based on what your side would lose, not the damage that you would do. I’m sure most of the Shahed shoot downs use munitions more expensive than the target.

The cost of an Iskander missile that you can only use once, vs the cost of a Tornado S that you could use many, many times, not just against MLRS, but against Tanks also. Or indeed, the same cost in aircraft launched weapons.

I can guess why they bought Iskander instead. They saw it as politically useful as an intimidation tool against NATO. I submit a similar number of Tornado S systems, if they could have procured them, would have been more useful in the campaign they are now fighting. And in fact they did promise they were hurrying procurement of them. So far in this war they have been almost totally absent. We can only guess some hard choices had to be made, do I buy this Tornado battery, or a Superyacht? Decisions decisions...

In the end, its a dead end argument. The Ukrainians will be able to access more HIMARS and MLRS than the Russians will ever have Iskanders to use against them, something they seem to realise when procuring erstaz weapons from abroad. Looked at like that, its a false exchange, particularly as the weapon  could be employed against other targets that Tornado S, if they had them, would not have been engaging. Like rear area fuel dumps, munitions dumps or HQ's, all traditional weapons for ballstic missiles.

Looked at like that, the cost is perhaps  not what the missile cost, or what the MLRS cost. The cost is what the Iskander missile might have been expended against. Its being expended in a proligerate manner, when they clearly do not have the numbers to employ them that way.

Look, people dont get my point, and thats absolutely fine. Perhaps its just my ADHS metasticising again.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Yama]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If you had read the link I included,

'Finally, the $300,000 for a ballistic missile for the "Tochka-U" missile, which is roughly three Javelin missiles. If that was the case, Ukraine, which uses this system, too, would have already bought everything it could from its post-Soviet allies in the war against russia. '

Which is to be fair, a pretty fine point.

Without reading the whole article - that price, presumably, would apply to whatever Tochka missiles available on open market (if any). Given that production of the missile ceased ca. 1991 I believe, any missiles available would already be beyond its projected service life, and priced accordingly. Which would also explain why pre-war Ukraine would not have been interested in acquiring them.

If Tochka was to be produced today, I think it would cost lot more. Well NK does produce them, but price information probably isn't available.

 

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

'To deal with the 9M723 ballistic missile for the Iskander system, we can refer to the cost of an ATACMS missile for the family of American artillery rocket systems. For example, in 2012, the United States sold 70 M39 Block 1A missiles to Finland for $132 million, i.e. $1.88 million for one "conditional" missile. We say "conditional" because this contract also included additional services and profit from the export agreement.

Finland did not eventually buy them, that was just the export license, which was rejected as 'too expensive for an already old fashioned weapon'.

It's true that some targets Russians have engaged with Iskanders would have been possible to engage with cheaper weapon such as guided Tornado rockets. However, you have to figure in that one Iskander lanucher covers as much frontage as entire battery of Tornado MLRS, and latter have to be closer to the front and are thus more vulnerable to potential counter-attack. And those weapons have other, unguided fire missions to perform too.

As for tactical air, it is just too slow to react to fleeting targets unless it's a platform with very long loiter time, we're talking about like of B-1B as it was used in Afghanistan, or some heavy fighter with tanker support. Obviously not a viable proposition for Ukraine.

 

[ink]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

In the end, its a dead end argument. The Ukrainians will be able to access more HIMARS and MLRS than the Russians will ever have Iskanders to use against them, 

MLRS, sure, HIMARS, surely not? How many launchers have been built in total worldwide? Less than a thousand?

[alejandro_]

3 minutes ago, ink said:

MLRS, sure, HIMARS, surely not? How many launchers have been built in total worldwide? Less than a thousand?

Production was 48 per year in 2022, increasing to 60 in 2023. Now the objective is to reach 96, but not all of them can be supplied to Ukraine because there is a long queue of clients.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Yama said:

Without reading the whole article - that price, presumably, would apply to whatever Tochka missiles available on open market (if any). Given that production of the missile ceased ca. 1991 I believe, any missiles available would already be beyond its projected service life, and priced accordingly. Which would also explain why pre-war Ukraine would not have been interested in acquiring them.

If Tochka was to be produced today, I think it would cost lot more. Well NK does produce them, but price information probably isn't available.

 

Finland did not eventually buy them, that was just the export license, which was rejected as 'too expensive for an already old fashioned weapon'.

It's true that some targets Russians have engaged with Iskanders would have been possible to engage with cheaper weapon such as guided Tornado rockets. However, you have to figure in that one Iskander lanucher covers as much frontage as entire battery of Tornado MLRS, and latter have to be closer to the front and are thus more vulnerable to potential counter-attack. And those weapons have other, unguided fire missions to perform too.

As for tactical air, it is just too slow to react to fleeting targets unless it's a platform with very long loiter time, we're talking about like of B-1B as it was used in Afghanistan, or some heavy fighter with tanker support. Obviously not a viable proposition for Ukraine.

 

Well they would be closer to the front, true, but then they would in themselves be absorbing attention HIMARS strikes that would be targeting something else. An expensive way to absorb attention its true, but then I would argue its the business of long range rocket artillery to fight each other, not wait for what is a system that straddles the tactical/strategic level to fix what is a tactical problem.

The truth is, they need both weapons systems, because they compliment each other. But the idea they just buy Iskanders and that can fullfill every role from poping Artillery/Rocket artillery, to sams right through to targets like POL and munitions dumps, clearly cant work, simply cannot procure enough missiles for that to work. Maybe they can make it work with the Iranian and North Korean missiles, except, im willing to bet they have a high dud rate, and are nowhere near as accurate as they think they are going to be. Happy to be proven wrong on that one.

Im not sure I buy that. If they had invested in enough tankers, they woudl have enough aircraft to keep up a cab rank system. To me, it looks like they spent all the money on the sexy stufff, like Su30 and Su34, and forgot the meat and potatos. Tankers, stand off weapon systems, AWACS. Granted they were hard up in the 1990's, but putin has been in office 24 years by now, and clearly from a fairly early stage he had the ambition to rebuild his empire. Didnt anyone in the Airforce think it might one day be necessary to fight NATO? And what is it saying about them that they are faltering, just from fighting a NATO analogue iwth nothing like our airpower?

People can think im boneheaded, maybe they are right. I just dont see the utility of using a precious weapon system like this, when more suitable invesetment in rocket artillery would have allowed them to be expended on more important stuff.

 

Edited September 12, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

59 minutes ago, ink said:

MLRS, sure, HIMARS, surely not? How many launchers have been built in total worldwide? Less than a thousand?

I think it comes down once again to, how many Iskanders can they make under sanctions, compared to how many HIMARS/MLRS can Ukraine come by when they put their begging bowl out? Perhaps im wrong, but I can hardly see them matching up. And even if they did, its still targets that Iskander ought to be hitting that it cant, because they are busy toasting tactical rocket artillery systems.

 

[ink]

13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I think it comes down once again to, how many Iskanders can they make under sanctions, compared to how many HIMARS/MLRS can Ukraine come by when they put their begging bowl out? Perhaps im wrong, but I can hardly see them matching up. And even if they did, its still targets that Iskander ought to be hitting that it cant, because they are busy toasting tactical rocket artillery systems.

 

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point. I originally just piped up to ask about the price of an Iskander missile... And yes, I then wondered whether the Russians have enough Islanders to go after every HIMARS launcher if they so desire.

But overall, I think you're right, in an ideal (Russian) world, I'm sure they would prefer to take HIMARS launchers out with something much cheaper if such an option presented itself, not least so they avoid 'wasting' an Iskander on a decoy.

Ultimately, [random freewheeling speculation alert] if a small recon drone can spot and track a HIMARS battery unopposed by AD, it might make sense for one to be developed into something (i.e. be fitted with a small warhead) that can also crash into its quarry without needing to call in a separate strike.

Edited September 12, 2024 by ink
to correct typos

[bojan]

4 hours ago, TrustMe said:

You have to factor in the TEL cost. I don't know how many Iskander launches a TEL can do before replacement but it's not a lot.

Why would that be? Old Tochka TEL could do ~150 launches before overhaul.

[bojan]

4 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Exactly and many claimed ”iskanders” are not iskanders at all, but something else. ”Iskander” name just happens to be RUS wunderwaffe of the month.

Some are Tornado-S, some are missiles from aircraft, but at least ~50% of published vids (that I have seen) are Iskander.

[bojan]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

No, im getting hung up on the absurdity of using a 24 foot high ballistic missile that is better suited for the nuclear mission, to take out tactical targets...

Except main Iskander mission is tactical. It is not ICBM FFS. Stop reading '80s Jane's.  

3 hours ago, urbanoid said:

...Stop with this 'accountant bullshit', think how much stuff can said MLRS destroy and how many people it can kill if it's not destroyed first...

This + many.

Stuart's way of thinking is a prime example why British armed forces are so fucked up, too many accountants concerned about cost/benefit and not enough people who actually know what a war (real war, not colonial policing actions) look like. 

[MiGG0]

7 minutes ago, bojan said:

Some are Tornado-S, some are missiles from aircraft, but at least ~50% of published vids (that I have seen) are Iskander.

Seems similar what I have observed. Reinforces the point that RUS do use what is available and fast to respond. If they have ie Tornado-s in range, they will probably use that, etc. It is not just iskanders where Stuart seen to somehow focus.

[Stuart Galbraith]

28 minutes ago, ink said:

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point. I originally just piped up to ask about the price of an Iskander missile... And yes, I then wondered whether the Russians have enough Islanders to go after every HIMARS launcher if they so desire.

But overall, I think you're right, in an ideal (Russian) world, I'm sure they would prefer to take HIMARS launchers out with something much cheaper if such an option presented itself, not least so they avoid 'wasting' an Iskander on a decoy.

Ultimately, [random freewheeling speculation alert] if a small recon drone can spot and track a HIMARS battery unopposed by AD, it might make sense for one to be developed into something (i.e. be fitted with a small warhead) that can also crash into its quarry without needing to call in a separate strike.

One of the more fascinating things from Tornado S is it had a rocket that would deploy a drone downrange to look for targets. After they had a rough idea where the targets were, but enough to be able to key in the rest of the systems to attack it. Another thing they cant do with iskander.

Well, its just my view. Once again, im surprised a view of mine is so contentious, when its so flipping obvious this is a problem.

 

24 minutes ago, bojan said:

Except main Iskander mission is tactical. It is not ICBM FFS. Stop reading '80s Jane's.  

This + many.

Stuart's way of thinking is a prime example why British armed forces are so fucked up, too many accountants concerned about cost/benefit and not enough people who actually know what a war (real war, not colonial policing actions) look like. 

Are you familiar with the concept, send a bullet, not a man? That is the British way of war since the end of WW1. And with a  country as perpetually poor as mine, we know something about getting value for money, let me tell you.

Maybe Russia has Infinite cash, and can piss away all its increasingly scarce computer chips on creating enough Iskanders to do the job. Great. But it hasnt yet, and if it hasnt managed it after 2 and a half years of war, when precisely will it?

And that is why, with the best will in the world, and with a complete absence of snideness or mockery compared to your good selfs effort, why you are completely wrong, and why this is completely evidently a problem of supply and demand. They didnt get a cheaper system to do the job to take out rocket artillery,so they are having to use one they cant mass produce in the numbers required to do the job on the occasions required. Dont tell me they can. They are not going cap in hand to the undesirables for second rate systems to make up the numbers if they were.

 

I dont know how many times I can dress this up in a frock for you. You either get it, or you dont.

Edited September 12, 2024 by Stuart Galbraith

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

Seems similar what I have observed. Reinforces the point that RUS do use what is available and fast to respond. If they have ie Tornado-s in range, they will probably use that, etc. It is not just iskanders where Stuart seen to somehow focus.

Do you know, the ONLY time I can say in the past 2 and a half years ive seen a single reference to Tornado S, is when the Ukrainians captured a reload vehicle in 2022. And that was it. Oh, and one occasion I think relating to Bakmut where a battery was used. And thats it. In 2 and a half years.

And I have been looking too. Perhaps the Russians arent talking about them now, which is strange, because they were doing very little else but talk about the worldbeating rocket artillery system they were procuring in the 5 years in the lead up to the war.  And then it all went silent.

Wikipedia puts the number of Tornado S systems at 50. I think they are right.  Thats what, two Rocket artillery brigades? Inadequate considering the amount of front they have to cover.  Compare that with 160 iskander launchers they have. Launchers they cant keep pace with the amount of rockets expended.

I dont begrudge them making war anyway they can. im merely suggesting that if they are making war this way, its because their procurement very decisively fucked up and left them no alternative but to do it this way, which seems to be par for the course for how Russia has fought this war from the start.

[bojan]

5 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

... And with a  country as perpetually poor as mine, we know something about getting value for money, let me tell you...

If you knew your army would not be in the condition it is ATM.

[glenn239]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Do we have any evidence that these Himars kills were far behind the lines? Also I would argue Russia has plenty of time to develop UAV ISR based tactics pre war.

 Everyone on this site knows that Russian drone doctrine was massively defective at all levels before the war, and now they've undergone a transformative process that has placed as a top priority drone technology, production, and incorporation into doctrine at all levels and branches of the Russian armed forces. The radical improvement in Iskander targeting performances we are seeing are a manifestation of that process, as well as improvements in command and control doctrine.  All of it happened only because of the war.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The reason why the army is in the condition its in is manyfold, and I can go over it with you anytime you like. But its not that they dont  know how to fight a first tier army with stand off systems (Stormshadow and Brimstone are examples of this)  The problem was a generation of politicians and generals managed to convince themselves, on absolutely no evidence, there was no more 1st Tier armies that had to be fought.

[glenn239]

6 hours ago, Yama said:

 

I'm baffled why we aren't seeing Russia using UCAVs over Black Sea, as there they could work their strengths and medium level air defence is minimal or nonexistent.

Hard to say, but of all three branches of the Russian armed forces, my impression is that the Russian navy is the most useless in terms of command competence.

[MiGG0]

10 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Do you know, the ONLY time I can say in the past 2 and a half years ive seen a single reference to Tornado S, is when the Ukrainians captured a reload vehicle in 2022. And that was it. Oh, and one occasion I think relating to Bakmut where a battery was used. And thats it. In 2 and a half years.

And I have been looking too. Perhaps the Russians arent talking about them now, which is strange, because they were doing very little else but talk about the worldbeating rocket artillery system they were procuring in the 5 years in the lead up to the war.  And then it all went silent.

Wikipedia puts the number of Tornado S systems at 50. I think they are right.  Thats what, two Rocket artillery brigades? Inadequate considering the amount of front they have to cover.  Compare that with 160 iskander launchers they have. Launchers they cant keep pace with the amount of rockets expended.

I dont begrudge them making war anyway they can. im merely suggesting that if they are making war this way, its because their procurement very decisively fucked up and left them no alternative but to do it this way, which seems to be par for the course for how Russia has fought this war from the start.

They are talking about Tornado-S aswell. You just mostly miss it as you follow only UKR sources.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im following youtubers that regularly follow the Russian sources (Not least the guy who narrates The Eastern Border, a Latvian), and they are not being mentioned. Well it generally wouldnt be, if they have only 50 systems available. It may well also be that in many cases what is being refered to Is actually Tornado G,  which would seem to be available in at least 3 times as many units.

 

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im following youtubers that regularly follow the Russian sources (Not least the guy who narrates The Eastern Border, a Latvian), and they are not being mentioned. Well it generally wouldnt be, if they have only 50 systems available. It may well also be that in many cases what is being refered to Is actually Tornado G,  which would seem to be available in at least 3 times as many units.

 

Again you just prove my point. They are mentioned time to time in RUS sources.