Ukraine
Ukraine: Is Russia Running out of Missiles?
The use of strategic X-101 standoff missiles could be a sign of shortages or is it just a sign that Ukraine’s air defences are too effective?
On Sunday 26 June 2022, Russian strategic TU-95MS and TU-160 bombers fired X-101 missiles at Kyiv.
Apparently hitting Kyiv was meant as a warning to the G7 leaders who were meeting at Schloss Elmau in the Bavarian Alps.
I’m not surprised that Putin wanted to make a point, just when Russia has defaulted on foreign debt payments for the first time since 1918. It was a paltry sum of $100m which Russia can pay, but does not have access to suitable payment systems to complete the transaction. The BBC reported that the Kremlin had been determined to avoid the default, which is a major blow to the nation’s prestige.
The missile attack on 26 June 2022
This is a link to the Ukraine Telegram Channel which shows the New York Time map of the attack. Copyright prevents me from displaying the map here.
- Russia fired X-101 missiles at Kyiv from TU-95 and TU-160 bombers over the Caspian Sea. They had taken off from Astrakhan.
- Six Russian bombers flew into Belarus airspace and launched missiles at Zhytomyr.
- Russian warships in the Black Sea launched missiles which hit Yavoriv, 400 miles to the north.
The X-101 missile (aka KH-101)
First shown in 2018, the X-101 cruise missile weighs 2,500 kg (2.5 tonnes), including a warhead weight of 400 kg. The length of the missile is about 8 metres and it flies at about 1,000 kph with a range claimed to be about 4,500 km (range claims vary). It was said to have been designed to ‘compete’ with the US Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile. The nearest operational US equivalent is the AGM-86B, which falls short on specification.
Targeting accuracy is said to be of the order of ‘tens of metres’ using the Russia’s own Glonass GPS system. The weapon apparently has terminal TV guidance for improved precision. The missile is re-targetable so it can be used to engage moving targets.
They do not have a rocket booster and use the bomber’s velocity for initial launch speed after which a drop-down turbojet starts. Launch height is up to 6,000 metres (20,000 feet). It has an operational ceiling of 10,000 metres (Military Today).
However, the reliability of Russian guided missiles has been called into question.
Failure rate
These are expensive missiles (I have seen a tag of $5m a unit mentioned), so failure rates are important, but whether this extends to the X-101 I don’t know.
In a US Department of Defence briefing on March 21, unnamed officials discussed Russia’s guided weapons inventory. The officials did not provide evidence to back up their assessment. Citing American intelligence, three sources said the US estimated that Russia’s failure rate varied day-to-day, depended on the type of missile being launched, and could sometimes exceed 50 per cent. Two of them said it reached as high as 60 per cent. — thenationalnews.com
Is there any reason to suppose that the build quality and production controls are any better for the X-101?
However reports originating from Ukraine Intelligence suggest that every KH-101 uses 35 US-made IC chips with the clear implication that Russia cannot produce suitable chips in its own economy. There is also speculation that these chips were sourced from China, or recycled in Russia.
The US Commerce secretary recently suggested that Russia is resorting to cannibalising white goods for chips.
This is quoted from the Ukraine Telegram Channel:
Russia noticeably stepped up its rocket attacks on Ukraine during the last weekend of June. In total, on June 25–26, Russia and Belarus fired from 60 to 80 long-range missiles
To calculate the cost of these missiles, Forbes used the following estimates: the cost of the X-101 missile is $13 million, the Kalibr is $6.5 million, the Iskander is $3 million, and the Onyx is $1.25 million, X-22 — $1 million, Tochka-U — $0.3 million.
In some cases, the number of missiles fired or their distribution by type remains unknown. Given this, it is impossible to determine the total cost of Russian missiles fired over Ukraine over the weekend. However, according to Forbes, it could range from $150 million to $220 million.
Apart from chip shortages, it’s not all down to money either. Outcomes are important. These weapons are used for strategic targets and failure to take out a high percentage of strategic targets is not good for a war effort.
The X-101 launch platforms
Tupolev TU-160
The Tupolev Tu-160, NATO reporting name: Blackjack, is a supersonic, variable-sweep wing heavy strategic bomber designed by the Tupolev Design Bureau in the Soviet Union in the 1970s. It breaks several records: It is the largest and heaviest Mach 2+ supersonic military aircraft ever built and is the largest and heaviest combat aircraft, the fastest bomber in use and the largest and heaviest variable-sweep wing airplane ever flown.
Tupolev TU-95MS
This is a completely new cruise missile carrier platform based on the Tu-142 airframe. Known to NATO as the Bear-H. Russia is believed to have 10 of these operational. It is the latest in the family of Cold War stalwarts dating back to 1951. It has evolved and survived because of its adaptability for multiple roles, as has the US B-52 Stratofortress.
Conclusions
My headline questions were:
Is Russia Running out of missiles or is it a sign that Ukraine’s air defences are highly effective?
It’s certain that Russia’s stockpile of cruise missiles is being depleted — that is is falling faster than replacements can be built. I base this on an assumption that Putin and his planners expected this to be a 3 day war and now it’s 120 days or so with no sign of ending. Production of replacement weapons cannot be ramped that quickly without preparation and it is unlikely that they had prepared for this scenario.
Add to that almost certain difficulties sourcing the electronic components — from where? How do they pay for them?
That’s the ‘shortage’ issue. What about Ukraine’s air defence system?
From everything I’ve read, it’s very effective, using Ukraine’s ex-Soviet (and enhanced) weapons, NATO-provided weapons such as the US Stinger and British Starstreak MANPADS plus others.
I analysed the air war in an earlier story and concluded that Russia had backed off air strikes because of its relatively high aircraft loss rate.
My overall conclusion is that Russia is not seriously running out of missiles. When it needs to use its most reliable X-101 missile (well proven in Syria) to make a point — as with the G7 conference— the platforms it launches from cannot go anywhere into Ukrainian airspace to launch, for danger of being downed. Ukraine has — so far — seemingly refrained from attacking air targets in Russian or Belarussian airspace.
That’s my view from the amateur armchair.
Coda: Since I started writing this story I have heard about the atrocious missile attack killing at least 18 people in a shopping centre in the Ukrainian city of Kremenchuk on the Dnieper River. The missiles used are yet to be identified. There were two — one hit inside an industrial plant impacting 500 metres from the mall and one hit the mall itself which is only 100 metres from the boundary of the industrial compound. Precision or poor guidance? Having looked at images, I think think it’s poor guidance.
Disclaimer: I have not been able to verify all the content in this story, but have used my best efforts to fact-check.
About me: If you follow me I guarantee variety in your inbox with some peculiar perspectives! I write on a wide range of topics including humor, tech, space, geopolitics and travel, together with daily news events and the minutiae of my daily life living on a boat. I also write about…
…missiles and madmen
If you appreciate stories like these and want to support other writers and me, consider signing up to become a Medium member. It’s only $5 a month, giving you unlimited access to incredible stories on Medium. If you sign up using my link below, I’ll earn a small commission at no extra cost to you.
Or maybe just buy me a coffee?
