First you said that the whole tracking is done by infrared tracking (only) and now you came up with excuses that it's a huge a** rocket. And oh one more thing, having a huge infrared signature has nothing to do with radar detecion. In this case the AN/APG-81 clearly used to track the object.
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20130307.aspx "DAS uses more sensitive heat detectors, which can spot a ballistic missile being launched over 1,200 kilometers away or another aircraft 30 or more kilometers away."
@48:30~
[Billie Flynn] A: So right we went from World War one the Red Bear and get the world war two like you're talking about p38 it's Spitfires it's against the great German pilot we get to Korea and fighter jets. we get to Vietnam same sort of thing we get to Top Gun thirty something years ago in that movie of dogfights.
That's not my world anymore.
I see the enemy 200 miles away.
Just so we are on the same page, infrared sees ballistic missile 1,200kms away, sees aircrafts more than 30kms away and on radar sees aircrafts 200 miles away?
Oh yes, not only I'm aware of it, I'm even more aware that comparison like this should take into account the stats for the comparator, in this case the AN/APG-70. Until we know at what range and altitude the 2.6m² resolution is for the AN/APG-70 is taken… safe to say that you can't label the IRBIS as superior.
if the apg-70 sees a 3m2 target at 200kms but the irbis sees a 3m2 target from 350kms do the math and tell me which one is more powerful? Stealthflanker is already widely known across many forums and amusingly enough doesnt have an account on this forum but what the irbis sees at 200kms the radar resolution would be alot smaller.
This is not a matter of kids glove, Russia doesn't have enough stock of precision guided munitions, let alone FOABs.
Look, you can use whatever past metrics like Georgia. That would not save you the fact that Russia is out in Kyiv, Chernihiv, Sumy and now Kharkiv. And that doesn't explain why Russia lost 2000+ MBT and IFV/AFV in only less than 3 months of war.
Again NATO has campaigns that have lasted longer or some that have lasted shorter and I am assuming that if you are saying 2000 MBTs than the ghost of kyiv must be real for you as well
In a war of attrition you can't just count equipment, you also have to count available soldiers. Ukraine had a population of about 40 million, how many of those are fighting age men? A few million people are already under Russian administration or wish they'd be, maybe 1/6 of the country, leaving 33 million. Of the rest, many are too old or too young or women, leaving maybe a third of that, so 11 million. What proportion of them is actually physically able and willing to fight? How many men have already fled? How many might be willing to defend their hometown or house, but wouldn't join the army for operations in other parts of Ukraine? The pool of available soldiers is maybe as small as 5 million men and there's no new supply as the children have already left and their wives are now living in the west, potentially meeting new partners. As long as Russia keeps killing a large number of Ukrainian soldiers every week, their recruitment and morale is worsening and at some point people will refuse to fight if fighting means certain death. If Russia kills 20% of the 5 million potential fighters, the rest will flee or surrender
?
