Russia Claims Breakthrough With ATACMS
Russia’s claim that it has “deciphered” captured U.S.-made ATACMS missiles prompts skepticism, with many seeing it as propaganda aimed at reassuring a domestic audience rather than evidence of a real technological breakthrough. Commenters contrast the decades‑old but still effective ATACMS with Russian systems like Iskander and S‑400, noting mixed Russian success in intercepting these missiles and heavy losses of advanced air defenses in Ukraine. The exchange broadens into a debate over the true state of Russian versus NATO military capabilities, the role of GPS jamming and inertial guidance, and how the war has become a live testing ground for modern weapons on both sides.
ATACMS Age, Successor Systems, and Russian Parity
- Debate over whether ATACMS is “30 years old” tech: design dates to the 1980s–90s, but later variants and production continued more recently.
- Some note ATACMS is being replaced by the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), but PrSM numbers are still low.
- Several argue Russia has no clear equivalent used as effectively; others counter that Iskander-M is a rough analog and used frequently and effectively.
- Disagreement on comparative battlefield impact: some say ATACMS is clearly outperforming Russian systems; others argue Iskander and Russian glide bombs, helicopters, and artillery are more decisive for Russia.
Guidance, GPS Jamming, and Countermeasures
- ATACMS and various Western munitions use GPS-aided inertial guidance; all are known targets for Russian electronic warfare.
- Reports (cited in-thread) claim severe degradation of some GPS-guided shells under Russian jamming, though ATACMS can revert to inertial-only guidance.
- Some see Russia getting intact or partial ATACMS as valuable for refining GPS-jamming and interception; others emphasize the tech is old and well-understood, limiting the gain.
How Russia Might Have Obtained ATACMS
- Theories include duds that failed to detonate, missiles belly-flopping due to malfunction, or being left behind after Ukrainian units are overrun.
- Skepticism toward “black market” transfer of large systems; easier vectors suggested are battlefield capture and insider information.
- No consensus on whether Russia has a fully intact specimen; the article’s implications are viewed as unclear or propagandistic.
Propaganda, Signaling, and Credibility
- Many see Russia’s “breakthrough” claim as internal propaganda to assert superiority over Western weapons.
- Comparisons made to historical secrecy (e.g., Enigma) as evidence that real breakthroughs wouldn’t be publicized.
- Some argue Western media too often repeats Russian claims without independent verification; others note the fog of war and acknowledge much remains unclear.
War Outcomes and Broader Strategy
- Disagreement over who is “winning”: some say Ukraine is losing territory and men; others emphasize Russia’s high losses, equipment depletion, and strategic setbacks.
- Debate over Russia’s motives: fear of NATO proximity vs. imperial ambition; multiple commenters argue the invasion has ironically expanded NATO and undermined Russian security.