this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2023
216 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2716 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
 

Russian President Vladimir Putin's military on Friday launched what's been called the largest aerial attack of the Ukraine war, and one economic-focused Ukrainian outlet estimated the cost of the assault for Russia to be at least $1.273 billion.

The figure was calculated by Ekonomichna Pravda (Economic Truth), which tallied the prices of the drones and missiles the Ukrainian Air Force reported Russia used during the massive assault.

The Associated Press (AP), citing Ukrainian officials, said at least 30 civilians were killed in the strikes that took place across the country—including on the capital Kyiv—and at least 144 people were wounded. The AP reported Russia used 122 missiles and dozens of drones in what was a bombardment that lasted around 18 hours. Officials said a maternity hospital, schools and residential apartments were among the structures damaged.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It's still a wonder. 174 people dead or injured, if even underreported, means less than two hurt by one missile that alone can level a multi-level apartment complex. That means their air defence, even with that unprecendented intensity, knows their shit and downs most incoming missiles in the open field before it's too late. The only problem is if they have enough munition to keep that going. That's on EU, US and others to provide. There can't be a 100% success rate, but if they didn't do their job at all, there could be thousands of victims like in Gaza that doesn't have any defences at all. None of these victims should have experience that, but for comparing no defence and an active work in that direction, you can see not only lives saved, but effective, deserved investments other countries are slow to provide. If not in attacking ammunition for some reason, but in defensive one, those get exhausted in these major attacks like a popcorn and need the according temp of replacement. Letting them defend their people and critical infrastructure is a universally a good thing. And they've shown they can work with it alright.

[–] xylogx@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

How costly is the air defence in comparison to the cost of the attack?

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

It really depends. I’m on the go so I can’t dig deep, but news reports keep saying Russians used cruise missiles.

A Russian Kh-101 costs about $18 million USD. A Kalibr is somewhere between $1 and $6.5 million USD (sources are a bit muddy and I think the high end is more like the export price).

There is a wide variety of air defense systems from many countries in Ukraine, but for example a single Patriot missile, a long range defense for shooting down cruise missiles costs about $4 million USD for the US. The cost of the launcher is about $1 billion (with a b) for the US. In this case you can see the missile is, relatively speaking, cheap compared to the whole system.

Keep in mind there is a ton of variation. Russia allegedly also launched drones, and a drone is a pretty wide category of size and price.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

Patriots are expensive, an IRIS-T costs about 350k Euro, SL variant 500k (the air defence system can use both using quite cheap launchers but the base variant has quite limited range when launched from the ground, being an air-to-air missile and all). And they have yet to miss an incoming missile.

The ideal situation is if they can take something down with a Gepard, a burst should cost maybe 100-200 Euro and you usually only need one or two, they're quite accurate.

[–] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

No expert, but I remember that systems to defend themselves are wery expensive, since they have many elements to cover a perimeter, but the rockets themselves are not as much as those targeting you. If they can keep new systems safe and just consume shots, it seems cost effective to those rockets trying to breach the dome. I'd like for some weapon geek to correct me.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I think you’ve got the basic shape of it for long range air defense, although a Russian Kalibr missile can be cheap when talking about guided missile prices, so there are exceptions. I think, on average, a cruise missile will be more expensive than a defensive missile.

More than focusing on the dollar amount, looking at the capability loss intrigues me more. Cruise missiles are offensive, and take longer than dumb weapons to build, especially for Russia due to shortages of tech resources. Wasting them on essentially a giant terror attack with no follow through is just burning resources. Where were these missiles when Russia was sending infantry waves into Avdiivka?

On the flip side, air defense missiles are only defensive. Sure, using them to defend from this missile wave depletes future ability to use them, but they were depleted while doing exactly what they were built to do.

[–] xylogx@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

My understanding is that attacks like this force deployment of air defences to population centers rather than protecting military targets. So no direct military benefit, but it can help shape the battlefield.

[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

It’s absolutely possible. I don’t have have up to the minute reports, and I don’t think anybody in the west has access to the thoughts of Russian military leadership.

My impression though is that it is a quite uneven military trade to put so many resources into an attack like this just to divert protection away from the frontlines, and then not really leverage that by hitting the lines. Maybe it’s coming later after goading Ukraine into permanently sending resources to civilian areas. I do not know.

I have suspicions on what else it may be, but it is mere wild speculation.