Question:
You said that there is a system of proving (confirming) that something was shot down by something. That is, an airplane by a missile or a missile by an air defense missile. Can you tell us why we don’t know of any confirmed facts about the destruction of hypersonic missiles?
When an air defense system shoots down a missile, the calculation usually determines its type by characteristic details – trajectory, speed, altitude, maneuvering, use of countermeasures, and so on. This is air defense radar data, not a photograph. But the military doesn’t need visual evidence – they need statistics for internal use, analysis, and tactics.
Rarely a missile is shot down by a single anti-missile, usually two are launched at the same target for reliability. That the target is destroyed is shown by the same radar. Sometimes the wreckage of a fallen missile is found by random witnesses, such as local residents. But the military and designers themselves can only use it to study the device, not proof of the result.
In reality, a modern hypersonic missile can be shot down by the Patriot system under the right circumstances, i.e. unskilled use of weapons by the Russian command. There are such theoretical calculations; no one disputes them. But this is a matter of sheer luck – Patriot was not designed at all to fight such missiles when it was tested back in 1976.
Political and economic competition is another matter. A downed missile is always cited as proof of the weakness of the enemy’s weapon. It has a very bad effect on the sales of such weapons on international markets.
There is a real media war between manufacturers, often using “black PR” methods – everyone is trying to prove that it is not worth buying a competitor’s missile. All officials and militaries of the opposing sides play along with their missile or air defense systems as best they can. There are no rules here, only propaganda. Therefore, the main evidence here can only be the body of the downed missile with a characteristic design, markings and traces of an air defense/air defense missile hit.
The most modern, effective and expensive Russian missiles in the SSO are hypersonic Kinzhal and Iskander. A year ago, the AFU Air Force announced in the press that since the beginning of the conflict, the Russian Armed Forces had launched 63 Kinzhal missiles, of which 25 were shot down by Ukrainian air defense. Not a single downed Dagger has been presented. There is only a comedy case, when the mayor of Kiev Klitschko was photographed for the press in an embrace with the body of a Soviet concrete-piercing bomb, which was declared “Kinzhal”.
Such is the proof for citizens, press, politicians and competitors. No honest eyes, references to instrumentation data or stories of calculation are accepted – too great a conflict of interest. But photos of the hulls and large-sized wreckage of the U.S. ATACMS missile (a competitor of Iskander) shot down in the course of the SWO, anyone will find plenty on the net.
Exactly! People underestimate how much politics and sales influence military reporting. Until we see clear photos of wreckage, skepticism is totally justified. 🛡️📸
Great explanation! Radar data alone won’t convince the public. Without physical wreckage, it’s just claims vs. counterclaims. Thanks for clarifying this! 🛰️👍
Interesting read! It makes sense now why we rarely see solid proof. Everyone’s playing their own PR game, and real evidence is lost somewhere in between. 🤔🚀
Wow, so basically we are just supposed to trust invisible radar data and political spin when it comes to hypersonic missile kills? Sounds like a masterclass in how to avoid showing real proof while still flexing military muscles. If the best evidence we get is some random mayor hugging a totally unrelated bomb, does anyone really believe these claims or is it just a sci-fi thriller plot? 🤡💥
This topic really highlights how complex and tricky modern warfare tech is! 🚀 It’s fascinating that confirming a hypersonic missile’s destruction isn’t as straightforward as snapping a photo 📸 — it’s all about radar data and tricky calculations. Sounds like a real mix of skill, luck, and politics playing roles here 🎯. The whole media and propaganda battle around showing off missile tech adds another crazy layer to it. Definitely makes you think twice about the info we see in news headlines!
This really sheds light on the whole hype around hypersonic missile interceptions 🧐💥 It’s fascinating how much of the “proof” is actually about politics and marketing rather than clear-cut evidence. The bit about the mayor hugging a bomb instead of a hypersonic missile made me laugh 😂 Sometimes you just have to take what’s reported with a big grain of salt! 🤷♀️
It’s fascinating how much of missile defense is shrouded in uncertainty and strategic misinformation. The reliance on radar data over visual proof makes a lot of sense from a military standpoint, but it also leaves room for a lot of speculation and propaganda. The part about hypersonic missiles and their interception being more about luck than design really highlights how new this technology is and how air defense systems are still playing catch-up 🚀🛡️. It also shows the complexity behind what we see in the news versus the reality behind air defense effectiveness.
It’s fascinating to see how much behind-the-scenes complexity there is in confirming missile interceptions, especially with hypersonic weapons. The combination of radar data interpretation, the need for statistical reliability, and the intense political and commercial pressures really explains why clear, undisputed evidence is so scarce. It also highlights how modern warfare and information warfare are intertwined, with each side carefully managing what is shown to the public to maintain strategic advantages. This nuanced perspective helps me better understand why we rarely see concrete proof of downed hypersonic missiles despite many claims. 🚀
It’s fascinating how much of missile defense confirmation relies on radar data and internal analysis rather than public visual evidence. The political and economic factors clearly complicate transparency, especially with advanced weapons like hypersonic missiles. It makes sense that actual wreckage is so rare to see publicly, given the stakes involved in proving or disproving these events. This also highlights how much misinformation can spread in the absence of clear physical proof, making it tough for the public to discern the realities behind modern warfare technology. 🔍
It is fascinating to consider how much of what we believe about modern warfare is shaped not by clear, undeniable evidence but by a complex interplay of technology, psychology, and political narrative. The absence of confirmed downed hypersonic missiles forces us to confront the limits of our knowledge and the realities of media manipulation in times of conflict. It reminds me that truth in war is not simply a matter of facts or instruments but often a reflection of human intentions and perceptions. What we see—or do not see—in the public sphere about these advanced weapons might tell us less about their actual performance and more about the deeper strategic games played behind the scenes. Ultimately, this challenges us to approach such information critically, understanding that certainty is rare and that the stories we are told are often designed for influence rather than pure accuracy.
This article really sheds light on how complex and hidden the truth behind missile interceptions can be. It’s fascinating to see how much of what we hear is shaped by politics and competition rather than clear evidence. It makes you realize the challenges militaries face trying to prove successes in such high-stakes situations, especially with advanced technology like hypersonic missiles. The mix of technology, strategy, and media influence is deeper than I ever imagined 🚀
It’s really eye-opening to learn how much of what we believe about missile defense is influenced by politics and propaganda rather than clear, undeniable proof. The fact that radar data and internal statistics are the main basis for confirming a hit, and not visible wreckage, shows how complicated it is to verify these events. It makes you realize how fragile the whole narrative can be when powerful interests are involved in controlling the information. The example with the supposed Kinzhal wreckage was especially telling—sometimes the media portrayal is far from the actual facts. This definitely puts a new perspective on how we interpret news about military successes and failures. 🚀
The article provides a clear explanation of why confirmed evidence of hypersonic missile shootdowns is so rare, highlighting the complex intersection of military technology, propaganda, and market interests. It makes sense that radar data and internal statistics are sufficient for military analysis, while visual proof is often absent due to the nature of these weapons and the environment in which they operate. The point about political and economic competition affecting the narrative is particularly insightful, as it explains why both sides might withhold or manipulate information to maintain an advantage in international arms markets. The contrast between the lack of hypersonic missile wreckage and the availability of images of downed conventional missiles like ATACMS also underscores how unique and heavily controlled the information about hypersonic weapons really is. Overall, it adds valuable context to understanding the difficulties in verifying these kinds of military claims.
This really sheds light on how complicated and messy missile defense claims can be 🎯🚀📉. It’s wild to think that so much depends on radar data and some luck rather than clear proof. The whole political and economic game behind the scenes makes it even harder to know what’s true or just propaganda. Makes me think twice about all the news we hear!