Anyway, so HIMARS has achieved nothing at all this war. Post some actually effective artillery. Picrel.

Anyway, so HIMARS has achieved nothing at all this war.
Post some actually effective artillery. Picrel.

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >HURR WE KILL 10,000 HIMARS!
    >HIMARS USELESS ANYWAY!

    make it make sense vatniggy

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't get it. Why is OP being called vatnik if he's implying puccians are getting impaled by low tech weaponry instead of HIMARS.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because they're retarded Lockheed shills.
        They know damn well I'm Australian. They've probably got my service record by now.
        They don't like me telling the truth, so they fag up the board.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is "HIMARS doesn't work" this week's official cope? There seems to be a lot of that recently.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well HIMARS hasn't worked any week.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        100% chance these have all been abandooned at this point

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you think I can buy one on the black market coz they make my dick hard.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >tos-1
        >actually effective artillery

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Did pretty well at Piskey. Yukes complained about warcrimes and everything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Did pretty well at Piskey
            Can we see it?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              There was no video, but the town fell in a day.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the town fell in a day.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's an aussie shitposter from 4chan.

      [...]

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I figured it was just some retarded 12 year old feeding their personality issues.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not from 4chan
        I fucking hate politics.

    • 2 months ago
      | | :_|

      Ukraine just struck a massive railroad crossing in luhganda so their separatists are literally panicking right now.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your last thread got deleted, which on this board is a real fucking accomplishment.
    If you don't like the way that active warfare takes over PrepHole the way it alwasy fucking has, why not go outside and make some real feiends to dicuss your interests with?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >If you don't like the way that active warfare takes over PrepHole the way it alwasy fucking has
      Yeah nah I fucking hate... that... I think.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why would I care?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yeah I don't care that you're bumping my thread ironically, I still don't like you because you're gnomish.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wait is that the exact same system just copied 3 times in photoshop?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        *shrug* probably.
        Looks cool though.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Real stuff looks cooler

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Post some then.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Real stuff looks cooler
            That's not true at all.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              This thread is cringe but I like seeing this image because it reminds me of Chromehounds.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This thread is cool because it's about cool weapons.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fair enough, I can definitely get behind that.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not just the unit, but also the building it's standing in front of. This is embarrassing lmao

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      you fucking idiot posted this picture thinking it was badass but didn't even realise its fucking copy pasted, holy fucking shit you're an embarassment

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >OMG THAT PICTURE IS A THING OR SOMETHING WHATEVER THAT OTHER GUY SAID
        Oh no.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Whoa careful antisemitism will get you arrested in in Russia

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I just got here, what's going on.
        Do you

        [...]

        want to tell him?

        >another wehraboo PzH2k thread
        Oldfags like me would never.

        moron that's a 2S19 Msta-S.
        It's Russian.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that pic

      God OP you are truly cringe

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why is Vatnick arty so much better than ours bros? I thought we were supposed to be the best.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        technically the kraut arty is the best

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Interesting, I didnt knew it can yaw so far

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I tried to work the concept myself, I haven't seen them in action anywhere, but I don't think they'd be much good.
        It would do what the 2S9 would do, just slower.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pion?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yep.
        I don't like it much. Like it's cool because it's an 8" gun, but it doesn't actually do anything you can't do with a 6" gun.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah I think the range is extended compared to 155mm

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well the M777 can launch an unassisted round 36kms, the Pion is supposedly 40km.
            That 4km isn't going to win any wars.
            And when you're talking about rocket assisted and base bleed rounds, it's irrelevant anyway.

            So like yeah cool big gun, I get it, buuuuut, bit of a wet fart when you actually think about deploying it.
            It only carried 4 rounds because they're fuckhuge.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              that 4km can literally win wars if you can strike the enemy but he can't get back at you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ERGMs alone make that irrelevant, never mind cruise missiles.
                Rate of fire, precision, shoot and scoot capability, that's what you're looking for in SParty.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Carefully the poles will mistake it for a pzh2000 and start a seethe tread about the Germans

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Show me where the Mach 3 strategic bomber hurt you, my poor sweet lad. My plane is cooler than yours, I'm sorry it hurts.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    God the Bone is such a ripoff. Why can't I live in the universe where Valk made it through the years to become a supersonic missile truck?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why are you posting aircraft in the shit on lockheed by posting artillery that works thread?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Clearly this is now a cool planes thread.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          At least you're posting Boeing and not Lockheed, but still, weak.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's nobody else on Earth who can do what Lockheed does. Gotta pay the cost to be the boss. The other manufacturers make cool shit too though.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >here's nobody else on Earth who can do what Lockheed does
              Repeatedly rip off the governments of the free world by promisign sci fi wunderwaffen and delivering unreliable garbage?
              It's a good thing nobody else can do that or the free world would have gone broke years ago.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Best in the world baby. Fuckin' undisputed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                20 years ago and still untested in actual combat.
                The entire war on terror and lockheed planes didn't managed to contribute a fucking thing despite taking up half the USAF's budget.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He doesn't know about Syria
                Hahaha, you betcha, brother.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Syria was all Tomahawks which are Raytheon with the occasional contribution for F/A-18s which are Boeing.
                In the meantime which planes were the workhorses? The A-10 which were General Dynamics back in the day, the B1B which is Boeing, and the predators and global hawks which are Boeing.

                The only thing lockheed has successfully done in 20 years is waste money.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hahaha! It was actually a lot of Harops and F-35s with Hispanice and EW to BTFO Krasukha-4 at the same time, but no worries bro, it's all good.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No it wasn't. It was EA-18 Growlers that barely managed to do enough EW to allow for long range standoff strikes from Burkes to get through a little bit.
                But since F-35 "stealth" doesn't work against the S-300 radar, they were useless before they even got their first mission.

                And all that for the low low price of 1.5trillion dollars total program cost to date. That's actually an old figure it's probably more than that.

                Lockheed is seriously a black hole that sucks money and makes shitty animations.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nah bro, Israeli F-35s have been BTFOing Syrian air defenses and Russian electronic fuckery for years, pretty much non stop. It's cool if you haven't heard, you're probably thinking of something else.
                God I wish Canadians weren't such pussies.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Israeli F-35s have been BTFOing Syrian air defenses and Russian electronic fuckery for years
                Israel was using F-16s you idiot.
                The Americans could actually get the F-35 to IOC until 2017.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nahhh, but it's all good bro! You're thinking of the Suter attacks in '07, we're talking the new shit since 2018. Super cool, really cemented F-35 as having hit it's stride.
                God, I really just fucking wish that Canadians weren't such massive eternal twinks about everything. Now that F-35 is proven to be the most dominant attack aircraft on Earth, they could line up a 5.5th generation multi-role 'interceptor' and a legit breath of life for their industry for not a whole lot. I'm sure Lockheed would love to help out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're talking out your fucking arse is what you're doing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nope! It was what really made the world notice F-35's dominance. All the world saw it happen. It's still happening right now. So fucking cool.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's super secret and the whole world knows about the one sortie we did which was totally worth the 1.5 trillion dollars
                In what universe does that make any sense?

                Face it, I'm right, you just never thought it through. For the last 20 years, despite ample opportunity and literally trillions of dollars, Lockheed has achieved the same thing I could have paid two pakistanis on a motorbike with hand grenades to achieve.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Israeli F-35s just bombed Iranian facilities at Damascus International Airport on the 17th. No need to get antsy about it bro, just enjoy all the cool planes and stuff.
                Super Hornet is such a neat design, I hope it still gets some play in the coming years.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Israel bombed another country without any declaration of war of cassus belli
                That part I believe.
                The part where you actually think that's worth 1.5trillion dollars when it's literally something a WW2 aircraft could have done just as well is the part I don't get.

                >I hope it still gets some play in the coming years.
                I think you'll get your wish because the F-35 is going to become mysteriously classified for the next 20 years instead of actually doing anything, just like the F-22 has been for the last 20.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Heheh you're really funny, all that 1.5 gorrillion stuff was a riot back in 2010. Now that everyone is buying them the 50 year operating cost for the US fleet is actually under $1T and still falling. You gotta chill bro. Want a doobie or something? A lil whiskey and wine? You're learning, there's no need to be so upset at F-35 being the most dominant and successful fighter of our era.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >1.5 gorrillion stuff was a riot back in 2010
                Not gorrilion, Trillion. With a T. A number most people in 2010 had never heard before.
                That's 150,000 dollars a minute over the 20 year life of the program.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Haha, gotta pay the cost to be the boss bro. That shit is pocket change. Small price to pay for BTFOing vat-chink aligned terrorist states and making the coolest and best planes that ever were or will be.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Haha, gotta pay the cost to be the boss bro.
                No you don't.
                >That shit is pocket change
                No it isn't. It's the GDP of Australia, the 12th richest country on earth.
                > Small price to pay for BTFOing vat-chink aligned terrorist states
                Except it didn't. Boeing planes did, and they cost a fraction of what Lockheed planes cost.
                >the coolest and best planes that ever were or will be.
                They make shitty animations that impress retards.
                You know the F-35 in Die Hard 4 was all CGI right? And F-35Bs can't actually perform anyone of those maneuvers safely today, but back then they couldn't even fly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                F-35s are BTFOing Syria bro, no need to get all crazy about it. Just accept the fact that F-35 is the best fighter jet. B-21 Raider wouldn't have been possible without F-35, and that's going to be the best strike aircraft on earth. Probably already operational right now.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Does Syria even have a fucking air force BRO?
                You could do the same job with a fucking biplane.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Haha, yeah upgraded S-300s with Pantsirs/Tor/Buk, with Krasukha EW and S-400 radars being run by the Russians used to be considered really effective until now. Then everyone Israel strike right through it with F-35s and seriously BTFO all defenses. It was seriously rad.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No you don't.
                Yes, you do.
                >No it isn't. It's the GDP of Australia, the 12th richest country on earth.
                For the lifetime cost of the F-35 fleet with training, fuel, bases, upgrades, maintenance, and every little cost associated with the F-35 included until 2077? That's an excellent deal, then.
                >Except it didn't. Boeing planes did, and they cost a fraction of what Lockheed planes cost.
                The Super Hornet costs around $68 billion without adding in all the targeting pods and upgrades to it, and still doesn't have the sensor suite half as good as the F-35, which only costs $78 billion.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >For the lifetime cost of the F-35 fleet with training, fuel, bases, upgrades, maintenance, and every little cost associated with the F-35 included until 2077? That's an excellent deal, then.
                ONE
                POINT
                FIVE
                TRILLION
                DOLLARS

                And so far the only thing it's managed to do is bomb a country that doesn't have an air force or any defences.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And so far the only thing it's managed to do is bomb a country that doesn't have an air force or any defences.
                Tell China or Russia to get froggy, then. Not my fault other countries are scared shitless to test the US and the F-35.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would it be your fault other countries are sensible enough to use the planes that actually work?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >to use the planes that actually work?
                And what would those be?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Boeing did a shit job designing the F/A-18 Super Hornet. Due to the aerodynamic instability from the redesigned intakes, the pylons had to be redesigned after the fact to have an outward tow, so the airflow would fuck up the accuracy of the bomb's drop. This causes excess drag on the airframe. Can't forget the LEW on the Hornet causing buffeting so bad on the vertical stabilizers it would crack them, so they band aided them with dams on the LEX to redirect the vortex better. McDonnell Douglas and Boeing fucked the YF-17 design.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And yet - thousands of successful sorties.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/WAIHoga.jpg

        At least you're posting Boeing and not Lockheed, but still, weak.

        >here's nobody else on Earth who can do what Lockheed does
        Repeatedly rip off the governments of the free world by promisign sci fi wunderwaffen and delivering unreliable garbage?
        It's a good thing nobody else can do that or the free world would have gone broke years ago.

        Syria was all Tomahawks which are Raytheon with the occasional contribution for F/A-18s which are Boeing.
        In the meantime which planes were the workhorses? The A-10 which were General Dynamics back in the day, the B1B which is Boeing, and the predators and global hawks which are Boeing.

        The only thing lockheed has successfully done in 20 years is waste money.

        No it wasn't. It was EA-18 Growlers that barely managed to do enough EW to allow for long range standoff strikes from Burkes to get through a little bit.
        But since F-35 "stealth" doesn't work against the S-300 radar, they were useless before they even got their first mission.

        And all that for the low low price of 1.5trillion dollars total program cost to date. That's actually an old figure it's probably more than that.

        Lockheed is seriously a black hole that sucks money and makes shitty animations.

        [...]

        LM must have REALLY buck broken you vatnigs. So much, they live in your head, rent-free.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Lockheed
          >Rent free
          Lol, nothing is free when it comes to lockheed.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You get what you pay for.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I don't recall paying for bullshit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well, you wouldn't being a vatnig diaspora leeching of Australia.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >cope
                Uhuh.
                Just admit I'm right, now you think about it the money we've all given to lockheed over the last 20-30 years could have bought so much more if we had have given it to any other company.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No way, then we wouldn't have global dominance like this.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You mean like Boeing, the partner on the F-22? The same one who fucked up the KC-46 Pegasus program and has cost overruns over $5 billion? Or NG, BAE, etc that are subcontractors on the F-35 and are responsible for increased costs and time delays? Are you one of the retards that only think LM built the F-22 and F-35?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You mean like Boeing, the partner on the F-22?
                No I mean like Boeing the maker of the F/A-18, a plane that actually works and DOESN'T cost, quite literally, the GDP of a G20 nation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No I mean like Boeing the maker of the F/A-18, a plane that actually works and DOESN'T cost, quite literally, the GDP of a G20 nation.
                The F-35 costs $78 billion, while the F/A-18 Super Hornet costs $68 million, plus ~$11million for the Service Life Modifications (SLM) program to extend their service life. Now, add in the Sniper pod for $1.6 million, or the LITENING pod for ~$1.4 million, and you're at a total of $80.6 million for fewer capabilities than the F-35 that costs $78 million.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Slipped a b instead of an m on that first sentence there bro. Lookin' out for ya.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, thanks.

                >Nonono see actually that 1.5 trillion dollars before the plane ever flew doesn't count
                moron you can fudge the numbers all you want, I stopped buying Lockheed's bullshit years ago.

                Cope.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Cope.
                moron you're the one trying to pretend the F-35 is cheap.
                I bet you believe in climate change.

                1.5T was the lifetime figure from like 2010 before the costs came down after the Syria strikes started in 2018. The actual lifetime figure is now under 1T and we've spent hardly any of that.
                You need your pills bro, your therapist will be upset with you.

                No moron, that was the cost TO DATE in 2010. And that was just the American contribution of a multinational program.
                That didn't go down, it got written off to make the figure you're using look better.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > In 2012, the total life-cycle cost for the entire U.S. fleet was estimated at US$1.51 trillion over a 50-year life, or $618 million per plane.[98]
                Being angry and stupid is no way to go through life bro. Get help, if you can get it in a place like Australia.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Wikipedia
                If I were to click on that [98] what would I find?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                This: Government sees lifetime cost of F-35 fighter at $1.51 trillion
                LIFETIME
                https://www.reuters.com/article/us-lockheed-fighter/government-sees-lifetime-cost-of-f-35-fighter-at-1-51-trillion-idUSBRE8310WB20120402

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So it's just a news article, nothing substantial.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Math? Basic reporting? Your Seroquel prescription? Idk bro, not really a big deal since your own opinions are 100% unsourced. Do you want me to find the 2017 articles where that figure fell by .4 trillion?
                The US makes 15-20 times that much money in a single year tho. Haha, it could be 2 trillion over 25 years and it still wouldn't really matter.
                Anyways, I'm gonna go have a nice American sabbath lunch, and then I'm going to go to the doctor, have my insurance pay for it, wait less than 3 weeks for my followup. Have a nice day bros!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You mean like Boeing did to get the KC-46 tanker contract?
                https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/the-boeing-tanker-case/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hmmm, that's a bit serious.
                Here I was trying to give the American MIC and here you are saying they're all as bad as each other.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Every company does shit like this, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, etc. No company is 100% clean, retard.

                >https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/the-boeing-tanker-case/
                >Russian agents, mostly chuds, being exposed out of the military as of this week. Last successful 20 years ago.
                Yeah, so it's basically nothing at all.

                >Russian agents, mostly chuds, being exposed out of the military as of this week. Last successful 20 years ago.
                The fuck does that have to do with Boeing bribing to get the tanker contract? Are you broken?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/the-boeing-tanker-case/
                >Russian agents, mostly chuds, being exposed out of the military as of this week. Last successful 20 years ago.
                Yeah, so it's basically nothing at all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >moron you're the one trying to pretend the F-35 is cheap.
                It is. Cheaper than 95% of 4th gen. planes. Cheaper than the F/A-18 Super Hornet Block III, and the F-15EX, both made by Boeing, while having more abilities than both.
                >I bet you believe in climate change.
                The climate always changes. I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, brainlet, and no, no I don't.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I think you mean anthropogenic climate change, brainlet, and no, no I don't.
                Reeeeeeeeeeeally?
                So when they fudge the numbers on windmills to make it look cost competitive with coal you're on to that shit like a mouse on cheese, but when Lockheed, a company with a long track record of dubious or outright illegal behaviour pulls the same trick you've all of a sudden got too much cum in your eyes to see through it?

                You know what that makes you?
                A hypocrite.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Lockheed, a company with a long track record of dubious or outright illegal behaviour
                Like what? Post some examples.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_bribery_scandals
                >Commie fakes from 50-70 years ago.
                So it's nothing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What long track record of dubious or outright illegal behaviour
                >This one
                >Oh but that's just a long track record of dubious or outright illegal behaviour, that doesn't count
                Why would Lockheed have cleaned up their act? They've keep doing it, they keep getting massive contracts anyway, they keep doing it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Literally nothing from close to a century ago.
                >HURRF DURRF LONG TRACK RECORD.
                Nah.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I suck at math
                Okay.

                Every company does shit like this, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, etc. No company is 100% clean, retard.
                [...]
                >Russian agents, mostly chuds, being exposed out of the military as of this week. Last successful 20 years ago.
                The fuck does that have to do with Boeing bribing to get the tanker contract? Are you broken?

                >Every company does shit like this, Airbus, Rolls-Royce, etc. No company is 100% clean, retard.
                Yeah the American procurement process is corruption and duct tape.
                I'M GLAD WE'RE FINALLY ON THE SAME PAGE.
                But yet for some reason you insist that this time we can time we can totally take their word for it, despite the fact it only take retaining knowledge for just a week or two without relying on the TV and social media to remind you, that we've had TWO lockheed products make headlines during the Ukraine war.
                The Javelin and the HIMARS.
                And while both had big claims attached to them, and massive price tags to go along with it, they've had very little discernible effect on the course of the war.

                So MAYBE, given the corruption and graft are just part of doing business, we should maybe be a little bit skeptical that these very expensive weapons are actually doing anything for us militarily? What do you reckon? Am I making perhaps just a little bit of sense?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yeah the American procurement process is corruption and duct tape.
                All procurement processes no matter the country involved are. The difference is with America, you get what you were told you would get. Some may cost a little more than quoted, or take more time to get, but you get what you wanted.

                >But yet for some reason you insist that this time we can time we can totally take their word for it
                Take their word for what, exactly? Stop being vague, so we can actually have a conversation.

                >despite the fact it only take retaining knowledge for just a week or two without relying on the TV and social media to remind you,
                Why the ESL if you're an Aussie?

                >that we've had TWO lockheed products make headlines during the Ukraine war.
                >The Javelin and the HIMARS.
                Javelin is a partnership between LM and Raytheon. HIMARS is an Oshkosh platform built into the HIMARS by LM. I don't know what you're trying to say, really?

                >And while both had big claims attached to them, and massive price tags to go along with it, they've had very little discernible effect on the course of the war.
                Javelin is doing its job, destroying vatnig tanks. And HIMARS has stopped the only tactic vatnigs can into successfully: artillery barrages. While also getting past every type of vatnig SAM system to BTFO out of the dam bride, the Antonovsky bridge, and the rail bridge. Forcing vatnigs to pontoon supplies across the river. They've taken out upwards of 60 ammo depots, many command posts, bridges, and more. What exactly is minimal about that?
                >very expensive weapons are actually doing anything for us militarily?
                Very expensive? Only to Third World countries and Russia. The HIMARS cost less than $5 million/unit and the M31A1 GMLRS-U cost less than $150k/unit. Not at all expensive for what they actually do. It's more expensive to fire 300 grads rockets to hit a target that one M31A1 GMLRS-U can take out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The difference with America is SUPPOSED to be oversight.
                But what I'm seeing from you is willful blindness disguised as ignorance disguised as patriotism.
                At this point it has to be accepted that caveat emptor applies and you get what you deserve.

                That of course means that we're fucked.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The difference with America is SUPPOSED to be oversight.
                So, all the Congressional hearing, GAO reports, etc on the F-35 program isn't oversight? What other country has the same level of oversight or better?
                >But what I'm seeing from you is willful blindness disguised as ignorance disguised as patriotism.
                willful blindness to what, exactly? Also answer this: Take their word for what, exactly? Stop being vague, so we can actually have a conversation.
                >At this point it has to be accepted that caveat emptor applies and you get what you deserve.
                Isn't that what Congress, GAO with oversight reports? And the DoD does with IOC testing and Red Flag, and exercises pitting the F-35 up against what they and the world has to offer? Red Flag being the closest you can get to combat without going to war. I fail to see how the US isn't making sure they get what they paid for.
                >That of course means that we're fucked.
                >we're
                No, but China and Russia are, as they lack any of the safeguards the US has, and run on bribery and yes men fudging reports to make their systems look like they actually work. As seen by Russian SAMS abysmal record in actual combat in Syria, Iran, Armenia, and now Ukraine.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anon you are arguing with the Lockheed hate sperg
                This is literally all he does all day and no amount of getting BTFO shuts him up, don't bother putting so much effort in

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know. Trying to cause an aneurysm.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Since when did PrepHoleommandos start taking insults against US MIC personally tho

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Since february.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Who is? Letting a vatnig ESL shill tell lies is better?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's all so tiresome, find some new angle to bitch about daily

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't answer his question.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So, all the Congressional hearing, GAO reports, etc on the F-35 program isn't oversight?
                You mean the ones that you're ignoring? Where you're sense of civic duty moron? It's on YOU to hold your government to account.
                >What other country has the same level of oversight or better?
                Mine. Australia. Hands down a much better process with once exception.
                Whenever Lockheed is involved all of a sudden purchases are made overnight, with no competitive bid, and usually without a prior capability request from the ADF to the DMO (Defence Materiel Organization) the very people who are supposed to be policing exactly this sort of thing.

                We bought both Javelin and HIMARS as a result of the fucking news cycle, despite the fact that we did not have an outstanding capability request for either an ATGM or an MLRS, nor were any competing systems (the NLAW for example) considered.

                So I'm honestly expecting a bribery scandal.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You mean the ones that you're ignoring?
                How can I ignore something I posted?
                >Where you're sense of civic duty moron?
                I put it into things that actually matter.
                >It's on YOU to hold your government to account.
                I'd rather spend the money on F-35s than supporting morons and mexicans with a trillion dollars per year. I'm not worried that the price of the F-35 is $1.5-$1.7 trillion for the lifetime of the airframes until 2077. We spend that much each year on just moron and mexicans, alone. By the time that $1.7 trillion figure comes to fruition, we will have spent $55 trillion on morons and mexicans. It's literally nothing.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How can I ignore something I posted?
                Dunno, how'd you do it
                >I put it into things that actually matter.
                Apparently that doesn't include the GAO report you posted that says the F-35 is an unaffordable dog.
                >I'd rather spend the money on F-35s than supporting morons and mexicans with a trillion dollars per year.
                I'd rather spend it on something that's actually going to provide the capability we need, at a price we can afford.

                The whole reason we have the DMO is because of the F-35. In 2005 then Prime Minister John Howard and the President George Bush, walked into a hotel room in Washington DC with a lockheed sales rep, and walked out of that room having made the largest defence deal in Australia's history...

                ...despite the fact that a single engine short range interceptor that wouldn't be ready for 10 years (and wouldn't even make that deadline) wasn't REMOTELY what we needed to replace our tired old F-111s.

                Every time something like that happens, it's fucking Lockheed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                GAO will have a very high chance of saying it's unaffordable.

                We can use reports from F-18s and F-16s that came from GAO stating they are an unaffordable lemon.

                Interceptor? What? It isn't designed as an interceptor upfront but rather multirole.

                Question: which plane? Don't bring up European fighters since based they are expensive to boot. Gripen is just an anemic fighter and gullible people believe in SAAB marketing push. F-16s and F-18s are short range. F-22 is short range and can't be exported. Doing F-111 again will set you back on much larger cost and maintenance cost too.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We can use reports from F-18s and F-16s that came from GAO stating they are an unaffordable lemon.
                Post em moron, let's compare.

                >Interceptor? What? It isn't designed as an interceptor upfront but rather multirole.
                Well it's sure as shit not an F-111 is it?

                >Question: which plane?
                Right now I like the Mitsubishi F3, and I'm pretty sure that's because the Japs have come to the same conclusion I have, and the Japanese requirements are very similar to the Australian ones.

                In 2005, knowing what I know now, I would have said the F-15EX, the same ones singapore got because they're not as dumb as we are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I will get back at you regarding about the source.

                F-3 isn't in the air now and doesn't even even in the phase where they have representative airframes. And the projection of the price will be high and there since the planned airframes isn't high to begin with. And also, have you asked yourself, what airframes would you have between now and mid to late-2040s for F-3?

                And also, there are no EX in 2005. Singapore got the F-15SG. To get EX, you need to start in 2018 and wait for mid-2020s for deliveries. And also, the price and maintain cost is high too.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And also, have you asked yourself, what airframes would you have between now and mid to late-2040s for F-3?
                Already answered, the F/A-18E/F. At least it's got two engines.

                >Singapore got the F-15SG.
                Yeah that one.

                >Prince and cost blah blah blah
                If it's delivering the capability we actually need then it's worth it. The F-35 doesn't.
                War is expensive. This isn't news.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Which the SH have short range too. And base from the comments from Aussie mil peeps, SH wouldn't be survivable at mid to late 2020s and going to 2030s will be a stretch too far. This is the reason why USN is planning to replace SH by 2030s. Having two engines doesn't make it survivable. And by going to contest results, it seems they deem SH aren't fine close to 2050s.

                Which price have an effect on the size of your airforce on a constrained budget which affects the tactical size. You can have 100% deliver it but when going only in very small numbers, it's effect will be limited. You need to balance both capability and price.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Mate none of it's survivable, China's flying 5th generation air superiority now and their missiles are apparently top notch. The only fighter that competes with that is the Raptor which the yanks won't sell.

                Like I said, I like the F3.

                Cheap and useless is not saving money it's wasting it. And the F-35 isn't cheap. That was a lie Lockheed told as we established earlier in the thread. So it's just useless.

                And literally every other option outranges the F-35. None of them match the F-111, but they kick the shit out of the F-35. And they're also faster.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And eh, I'm not prone to underestimating enemies(I'm one of the people who are still saying Russian MIC is still dangerous) but if I were you, I would be more tone down.

                Did I say cheap? I said that price and capability need to be balance, you don't need to choose the extremes, you need to have compromises on various aspects(tactical size, price, capability, etc). This is the real world and it isn't kind to people.

                Range or speed? Pick one. You won't get SH at ~520NMI in Mach 2. Same for F-16. Interestingly, you need to add performance too and maybe price. Mix and match your capabilities and price points to get the best results.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mate none of it's survivable, China's flying 5th generation air superiority now and their missiles are apparently top notch. The only fighter that competes with that is the Raptor which the yanks won't sell.
                Come on now, your bait is getting ridiculous. The J-20 couldn't hang with an F-35 let alone the F-22. It has less range than the F-35, unless they're hanging 4 drop tanks of it, has a shit radar compared to the F-35, shit Russian engines that need totally rebuilt after 1500 hours, shit RCS, etc. The PL-15 had less range than 145km, not HOBS ability and it can't carry the PL-21. The AIM-120D3 has recorded the longest air-to-air kill of any US made air-to-air missiles. Which would put its range at 390km.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Already answered, the F/A-18E/F. At least it's got two engines.
                It's not 1960, single engine airframes are just as, if not more safer than twin engine designs.

                >Prince and cost blah blah blah
                You've spent the whole thred complaining about price, though.

                >If it's delivering the capability we actually need then it's worth it. The F-35 doesn't.
                >If
                It won't, the Nip F-2 is a shit version of the F-16, and they can't even build a commercial plane, and you think it will be what youthink Australia needs?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Well it's sure as shit not an F-111 is it?
                : which plane?
                Post one time you used the F-111 for its acrual intended purpose. The F-111 was a waste of money for Australia to buy.

                >Right now I like the Mitsubishi F3, and I'm pretty sure that's because the Japs have come to the same conclusion I have, and the Japanese requirements are very similar to the Australian ones.
                The F3 isn't real, and won't be built until 2040 and cost $140million, and you were just complaining about a 10 year wait for the F-35? Get the fuck out of here, gay.

                >In 2005, knowing what I know now, I would have said the F-15EX, the same ones singapore got because they're not as dumb as we are.
                You complain about the F-35 being expensive, yet, are willing to buy an F-15EX for $118million. Also, you complain about the lack of range in the F-35, yet, it has more range than an F-15 with three drop tanks attached causing excess drag, and taking up weight that could be used for munitions? Doesn't really seem like you know anything, honestly.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He has a naive thinking in how engineering, physics, and procurement works. And I forgot real life problems.

                Military people in Australia have said that SH wouldn't be survivable at mid 2020s. Waiting for F-3s by 2040s with SH would degrade RAAFs capability very hard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The F/A-18E/F would probably have won a competitive bid btw. We already fly the F-18C, and we actually bought 24 Super Hornets as a stop gap because we just couldn't keep the F-111s in the air past 2009.

                A modernized F-111 would be nice though. The pacific is big, you need a big plane to fight in it. Though swing wings were a bad idea in retrospect.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Base from the contest it entered and the comments made by mil peeps in Australia, no.

                And cost more to fix and uprated the F-111. Supply parts will be limited too.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                What language is that?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Mil peeps is my term for people in the military.

                I'm a little bit lazy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The F/A-18E/F would probably have won a competitive bid btw. We already fly the F-18C, and we actually bought 24 Super Hornets as a stop gap because we just couldn't keep the F-111s in the air past 2009.
                The SH has less range, less power, isn't as maneuverable for fighting, no sensor fusion, less capable radar, carries less munitions, and costs $81 million. And you think it would win a contract against the F-35, when all other countries that have ran the SH against the F-35, picked the F-35? Put the meth pipe down, Wang.

                >A modernized F-111 would be nice though. The pacific is big, you need a big plane to fight in it. Though swing wings were a bad idea in retrospect
                Oh, you ARE Kropp posting, holyshit.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I'd rather spend it on something that's actually going to provide the capability we need, at a price we can afford.
                It provides the capabilities it was set out to provide, and is cheaper than almost any 4th gen.
                >The whole reason we have the DMO is because of the F-35.
                No it's not, when it was a merger of two old departments in 2000. How could that be?
                >In 2005 then Prime Minister John Howard and the President George Bush, walked into a hotel room in Washington DC with a lockheed sales rep, and walked out of that room having made the largest defence deal in Australia's history..
                Congrats on getting a great plane.

                >...despite the fact that a single engine short range interceptor that wouldn't be ready for 10 years (and wouldn't even make that deadline) wasn't REMOTELY what we needed to replace our tired old F-111s.
                Aretou really going to start Kropp posting? First off, the F-35 isn't an interceptor, and has more range than any fighter thr US has ever produced, even when they're carrying drop tanks that compromise speed, maneuverability,and payload. A combat radius od 740miles for the F-35 unfueled is more than enough to protect Australian land and waters. With in air refueling the range is almost limitless.
                >Every time something like that happens, it's fucking Lockheed.
                Sure it is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah can't be fucked having the same conversation again, it's 3am I'm going to bed.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                you're arguing with a copy pasta
                it's word for word even the muh lockmart george bush bs

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >1950s to 1970s
                Anything from the last 5 decades, grandpa?
                Also, why are you citing Wiki, when you just shit on someone for citing Wiki, here:

                >Wikipedia
                If I were to click on that [98] what would I find?

                ?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't shit on him, I asked what the actual source was.
                And it was just a news article.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Is the GAO better?
                https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-505t

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. Though they're not perfect either. I'll check that out in a minute.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'd highlight bits and pieces out of that report, but I'd basically be greentexting the whole thing.
                >DOD plans to acquire nearly 2,500 F-35 aircraft for about $400 billion. It projects spending another $1.27 trillion to operate and sustain them—an estimate that has steadily increased since 2012.
                >F-35 mission capable rates—a measure of the readiness of an aircraft fleet—have recently improved, but still fall short of warfighter requirements,
                >Since 2012, F-35 estimated sustainment costs over its 66-year life cycle have increased steadily
                >The Air Force needs to reduce estimated costs per tail per year by $3.7 million (or 47 percent) by 2036 or it will incur $4.4 billion in costs beyond what it currently projects it could afford in that year alone.
                I'm basically just picking at random.

                It's a dog.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >DOD plans to acquire nearly 2,500 F-35 aircraft for about $400 billion. It projects spending another $1.27 trillion to operate and sustain them—an estimate that has steadily increased since 2012.
                WuFlu really fucked the numbers for 2020-2021 with supply chain issues. Let's wait a fewer year to see the true prices, as before WuFlu they were coming down.

                >F-35 mission capable rates—a measure of the readiness of an aircraft fleet—have recently improved, but still fall short of warfighter requirements,
                >Specifically, from fiscal year 2019 to fiscal year 2020, the U.S. F-35 fleet's average annual (1) mission capable rate—the percentage of time during which the aircraft can fly and perform one of its tasked missions—improved from 59 to 69 percent
                The Navy's F/A-18 E/F had a 51% readiness rate, so, the F-35 is much better than the Super Hornet you were just praising?
                >Since 2012, F-35 estimated sustainment costs over its 66-year life cycle have increased steadily
                All prices have increased. Welcome to Earth.
                >The Air Force needs to reduce estimated costs per tail per year by $3.7 million (or 47 percent) by 2036 or it will incur $4.4 billion in costs beyond what it currently projects it could afford in that year alone.
                It's on target to decrease maintenance prices already.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >All prices have increased. Welcome to Earth.
                And directly, DIRECTLY, gainsaying Lockheed's own claims on the subject.
                So who's lying, the GAO who says through-life costs have increased?
                Or Lockheed who says they've decreased?
                Because someone isn't telling the truth.
                And I'm not sure which one is more alarming.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can LM control the price increases from the 1,500 subcontractors due to WuFlu? Supply chain issues and price increase due to politicians closing the economies down because of WuFlu is now LM fault?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No moron, that was the cost TO DATE in 2010.
                Wrong. Retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Catch up with the rest of the thread first retard.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's right, you were wrong. I even posted the GAO report proving you wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Nonono see actually that 1.5 trillion dollars before the plane ever flew doesn't count
                moron you can fudge the numbers all you want, I stopped buying Lockheed's bullshit years ago.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                1.5T was the lifetime figure from like 2010 before the costs came down after the Syria strikes started in 2018. The actual lifetime figure is now under 1T and we've spent hardly any of that.
                You need your pills bro, your therapist will be upset with you.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >another wehraboo PzH2k thread
    Oldfags like me would never.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Your seething won't bring the bridge back

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Lockheed will probably sell it to me though.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    God, I just love living in the platinum age of aviation. So much cool shit we get to be alive for. It's really amazing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's a picture of a plane that doesn't actually exist.
      It impresses retards just enough for Lockheed to fleece the taxpayer of a couple hundred billion dollars.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Haha that's really funny bro. Knowing how the USA is with secret development, it's probably ready to decapitate Russia's nuclear forces right now.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >America needs to deescalate
    >Himars are useless wunderwaffe anyways
    >Himars have no effect
    [you are here]
    >we detroyed the Himars
    >verification not required
    >unrelated uptick in smoking incidents
    Again from the top.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      have no effect
      I am definitely there.

      https://i.imgur.com/FhmaHXM.jpg

      Haha that's really funny bro. Knowing how the USA is with secret development, it's probably ready to decapitate Russia's nuclear forces right now.

      There is nothing secret about any of it. The selection process between the X-35 and the X-36 was turned into a reality TV show on the discovery channel.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    So, what’s the reason for Russian artillery being unable to hit anything? I’m becoming more certain as time goes on that the MAIN reason is that the systems are junk. Low-quality industrial tech results in poor tolerances and tough compromises in design.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >shoot a gorillion shells for months on end
      >do zero maintenance on the artillery pieces
      I wonder.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous
  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Hey you let the 4chan thread die.

    Btw it's just gone hour 4 of you totally not caring about what I've got to say because you're not angry about anything at all.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    No that's what I'm saying, some mentally ill juvenile from another board getting serotonin hits off of retarded attention games.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      retard

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    How's your game of halflife 5 or whatever going?

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Did you forget what game you were pretending to play in between spamming threads.
    That's okay, I didn't believe you to begin with.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >/pol/moron posts the weakest bait ever
    >asked to leave PrepHole

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ivan, how many times are you going to make this thread

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I dunno, a couple more maybe. See how I feel tomorrow.

      https://i.imgur.com/Woriwxr.jpg

      No way, then we wouldn't have global dominance like this.

      We don't have global domance like that. That's a CGI image. A complete fiction.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, judging by the USA's track record on secret military tech it's definitely real. So cool, great to know that it's overhead watching over us, ready to destroy the enemies of freedom with no chance of escape.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >judging by the USA's track record on secret military tech
          Sorry what track record is that?
          When exactly did they keep something secret.

          You know how I know you've never served, you've got no idea what sort of things the government keeps secret.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nice, so do you know where Misty II is right now? Stealth spy sats, so cool.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Never heard of it.
              I can tell you a few things I can't tell you though.
              The maximum RPM of the propeller of an Armidale class patrol boat. They literally shoot you if you give that one away.

              The fact Australia has an air force on the other hand, is on the website for RAAF.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think making this thread instead of addressing any of the enormous flaws in your physical and mental health was a good decision, because it means you will die sooner

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Me too.
      But actually I think you're just coping with the fact the HIMARS wunderwaffen doesn't do anything.
      It's much easier to fool someone to convince them they've been fooled.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Caesars are pretty neat. Too bad there were barely 20 of them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah that's pretty cool.
      I like the Archer too.
      We really need to spend more on arty and less on Lockheed wunderwaffen.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're unironically the most impactful addition to ukrainian arsenal, vatniks are constantly talking about it...

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Something something Vulcano did all the deep strikes. That's the next part of the script, right?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          highly doubt any western spg get much use for deep strikes because of barrel longevity, most likely use pion and himars for that...

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're unironically the most impactful addition to ukrainian arsenal, vatniks are constantly talking about it...

      Something something Vulcano did all the deep strikes. That's the next part of the script, right?

      Dunno where this is going but I can't wait to find out.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Apparently mental health care in Australia is Florida Meth Shack territory.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That sentence might actually make sense in a florida meth shack.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Watch out y'all, he's disassociating into an identity that can't read.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Are you talking to me or about me?

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yeah you don't know which one's me.
    It's okay, I'm not sure what's going on either.

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Five hours.
    I think you're the maddest I've ever made anyone.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I'm happy that he's off getting a nice paycheck and enjoying himself away from this place.

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I'm pretty sure I'm the reason.
    I've been here a long time.

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    GOOD thread

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Yeah I'm not going looking for that day's reports.
    There were reports the TOS-1 was heading Piskey.
    Then Piskey fell according the the Russians the next day (Yukes don't report their losses).
    Then like like a week later the Yukes launched a counter attack (unsuccessfully) to retake the city.
    You had to read between the lines, but yeah, looks like thermobaric warheads do what it says on the box.

    But we'll probably have to wait till the war is over to know for sure like most things.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    another false-flag divide and conquer thread

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    SLAVA HIMARSINA
    PUTIN BTFO

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *