By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukrainian forces launched Flamingo missiles at the JSC Promsintez explosives production plant in Russia’s Samara Oblast on March 28. This facility is crucial, producing over 30,000 metric tons of explosives annually for Russian bombs and missiles, and reports indicate a confirmed strike resulted in an explosion in the production area. Visual evidence from local residents and Russian media appears to corroborate the attack, showing a large fireball and a missile approaching the plant. The Flamingo missile, a key component of Ukraine’s enhanced long-range strike capability, was previously used in strikes against Russian military production facilities.
Read the original article here
The recent news of a Flamingo missile reportedly striking an explosives production plant in Russia’s Samara Oblast is quite something. This event, which apparently occurred on the morning of March 28th, highlights a significant development in Ukraine’s long-range strike capabilities. The target, JSC Promsintez, is an explosives manufacturing facility, making it a strategic choice in the ongoing conflict.
The Flamingo missile itself is a domestically produced weapon that Ukraine has been developing. Its reported specifications are quite impressive, boasting a 1,000-kilogram warhead and a stated range of 3,000 kilometers, or roughly 1,864 miles. This capability could indeed dramatically enhance Ukraine’s ability to project power and strike targets deep within Russian territory, far from the front lines.
Geographically speaking, Samara Oblast is situated quite a distance from Ukraine, approximately 750 kilometers from the Ukraine-Russia border. This location emphasizes the extended reach of this missile system. Some observations point out that Samara’s longitude places it eastward, essentially aligning with Tehran, and a considerable distance from Ukraine itself, suggesting that if an opportunity arose, Moscow could theoretically be within the missile’s reach.
The very notion of a missile named “Flamingo” is, in itself, a somewhat amusing detail. It’s easy to imagine the conversation: “What should we call this new powerful weapon?” and someone suggesting “Flamingo!” It’s a testament to how necessity can indeed be the mother of invention, driving innovation even in the naming of advanced weaponry. The success of such strikes is seen by some as a positive development, offering a much-needed glimmer of good news in a difficult period.
The design of the Flamingo missile is noted to bear a resemblance to the V-1 flying bomb from World War II, suggesting a cyclical nature in technological development. This kind of innovation from Ukraine is actively encouraged by some, who believe European factories should be ramping up production to supply Ukraine with even more of these missiles to deploy against Russia. The sentiment is that this kind of action should be repeated, and Ukraine should “pour it on them.”
However, the discussion surrounding the Flamingo also touches upon the complexities of targeting and air defense. While Russia might be perceived as having vulnerabilities in its air defense systems, Moscow itself is heavily protected. It’s understood that Moscow utilizes advanced, layered air defense systems, combining various interceptors and detection equipment designed to counter threats, including those with sub-sonic speeds and significant radar signatures, like the Flamingo is described. Therefore, a direct strike on Moscow might not be as straightforward as it seems.
The strategic considerations for targeting Moscow are also complex. While some might suggest it could pressure Russia, there are arguments against it. It’s acknowledged that Ukraine generally avoids targeting civilians and the risks of collateral damage in major cities like Moscow. Such actions could potentially galvanize the Russian populace, reinforcing existing narratives, which might not be beneficial for Ukraine. The existing air defense ring around Moscow is extensive, likely consuming a significant portion of Russia’s total air defense assets. This leaves other areas, such as refineries, factories, and ports, potentially more vulnerable, as President Putin seemingly prioritizes the perceived safety of Moscow’s residents from the direct consequences of the war.
Despite the heavily fortified nature of Moscow’s air defenses, the idea of using strikes to draw out and reveal these assets, potentially uncovering more valuable targets, is also considered. However, the general consensus leans towards infrastructure targets being more effective and easier to justify for Ukraine, as they are less likely to provoke the same level of international condemnation or internal backlash as strikes on major population centers.
The operational aspects of producing and deploying advanced weaponry also come into play. The Flamingo missile reportedly relies on reclaimed jet engines, with both the design bureau and manufacturers of these engines located in Ukraine. While there are plans for “Fire Point” to acquire licenses and begin their own production of these engines, scaling up such complex manufacturing presents numerous challenges. Integrating a new engine into an existing missile system involves a multitude of small issues that need to be addressed. This suggests that while the potential is there, the full realization of this capability, particularly with indigenous engine production, will require time and significant effort. The ongoing development, including efforts to enable Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM) for lower flight paths, indicates a continuous push for improvement and enhanced effectiveness. Ultimately, while the Flamingo missile represents a significant step for Ukraine, its broader impact will depend on continued innovation, production scaling, and strategic deployment.