Japan Today



Stray missile hit in Poland casts spotlight on NATO air defense gaps

By Sabine Siebold and Joanna Plucinska

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2022.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

Login to comment

Interesting and informative article, it is sad but the conflict has made it so huge spending on air defense will be inevitable in the near future, this at a time where other priorities are still present.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Considering that they are now boycotted with IC chip supply, those missiles , also newer ones from now on, will have less of such self-destruction mechanisms in the future and then just fly until the fuel is burned up as written above. So the paradox just is, one has to give the Russians the missile chips for that they then don’t hit unintentionally something else farther away with their missiles. Nice strategic mind puzzle, isn’t it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"...you will never build something that is 100% impenetrable." That pretty much sums up the whole discussion.

On the question of whether the impactor was Russian or Ukrainian, I suspect that the Nato allies are invested in downplaying any Russian involvement, even if it is real. Putin is successfully causing the self-destruction of the Russian armed forces, and his new "Russian Empire," but in the meantime, we would prefer not to get actively involved in his insane war.

Historically, when Russians were captured in South Korea, or South Vietnam, their presence was covered up. America did not want a war with Russia, at least not one caused by unintentional accidents.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Don't forget Zelensky doubled down on his claim that the Russians were responsible...

Yes, and I hope this latest incident will cast a spotlight on how most of the MSM narrative of this conflict comes from Ukrainian sources. The title of many articles on JT start with "Zelensky says..." So no wonder many have a distorted view of this conflict (e.g. they think the Russian military is self-destructing).

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Stray [air defense] missile hit in Poland casts spotlight on NATO air defense gaps"

What kind of 'defense' can offer 'protection' when your supposed 'friend' nextdoor CLEARLY false flags you trying to manipulate you into a war for only their own benefit? A good start on a 'defense' would be to no longer consider them a 'friend'... And, regarding 'air defense systems', 1) What kind of missile hit Poland? 2) Where do these missiles go if they miss their targets, evaporate?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The article seems to ignore the western doctrine of war fighting that the best air defense comes from having a superior air force that is able to dominate the skies over an enemy. In actual combat US, NATO and Israeli air forces have been able to quickly dismantle Soviet or Russian built ground based air defenses in a matter of days and establish air superiority over an enemies territory (Bekaa Valley, Iraq) or forced an enemy to basically shut down their radars for fear they would quickly be targeted and destroyed (Serbia) leaving their air defenses to shoot into the blind and hope they might hit something.

The Russians have not ignored this fact and have improved their systems but the west and in particular the US has stayed ahead with all aspect Low Observable aircraft, both manned and unmanned, and some very stealthy cruise missiles. The west has also been very good at understanding Russian equipment or buying it outright to exploit and developing effective countermeasures.

Training and maintaining the combat effectiveness of an air force isn't cheap. US pilots fly ten times as many hours per year as their Russian counterparts and their training is much more demanding, and thus expensive since it involves expending weapons on expensive to operate instrumented range facilities like those at NAS Fallon or Nellis AFB just to name two, realistic simulated air combat and low level flying (see the many videos of what is called "Star Wars Canyon"). The Russian and many of their allies cannot afford this level of training so they rely instead on air defense missile systems for protection. Historically these have not lasted long in a real shooting war but it is all they can afford. The west chooses to put their money into their combat air forces based on their proven superiority over missile systems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

long story short.

best-in-the-world Patriot could not stop and shoot down outdated soviet S300.

Bad assumption. The US only sent two batteries of Patriot missiles to Poland. PAC-3, the version optimized for ballistic missile defense, has a range of 30 km. It is designed for short range point defense of specific military sites, not area defense. PAC-2 is an older version designed to engage aircraft and helicopters. It has a range of maybe 160 km but is not optimized for missile defense. It is more of a general purpose air defense system to deal with threats other than ballistic missiles. Since only two Patriot batteries were sent it is likely those Patriot batteries are protecting the airfields and logistics sites being used to re-supply the Ukrainians, and therefore not close enough to that farm to have engaged the missile that hit it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites