>F-16 developed 49 years ago
>Patriot developed 38 years ago
>Bradleys: 42 years old
>Abrams: first produced 44 years ago
It's insane how old most of the weapons used in Ukraine are. Imagine P-51 fighters in the Gulf War - that's the time gap we are talking about. And the Russian kit is even more ancient.
what current Patriot has to do with one from 38 years ago?
there's evidence that they have PAC-2 missiles which are from the 80's
Same for Russian weapons, but without the upgrades.
I'd probably contribute something interesting but your OP image is abhorrent so I'm just gonna make this thread even worse by existing in it
F-16, Patriot, Bradley, Abrams are more a brand than a single vehicle. The US doesn't change the name of the vehicle, that is what russia does to get more sales.
A F-16A has nothing to do against a Block 50 or 70.
>A F-16A has nothing to do against a Block 50 or 70
Fact is the MIC is just super slow and inefficient. The russian and chink versions just happen to be much much worse and corrupt in addition to the usual government slowness.
T. Industry insider its actually pretty amazing how trash the mic gets away with being. Paint an everyday object green and give it an inventory number and its "value" just went 10x.
tl;dr you're missing the point of the thread and my point with your useless post.
>upgraded with fuel injection and abs brakes!
>it's just like a brand new car trust me bro
Would drive in ukraine
I mean even the original is probably miles ahead of anything ever produced in the soviet union
man, i'm in Ukraine and thought of buying it. these lincolns are just gorgeous.
>It's insane how old most of the weapons used in Ukraine are. Imagine P-51 fighters in the Gulf War
It is a pretty wild observation, when put into perspective that way. To me I guess it's more of a sign of the speed and nature of tech advancement. The time between the First Flight at Kitty Hawk and the P-51H and Me-262 is about the same as the time between P-51s and Desert Storm. If anything, holy shit have we reached a crazy point of refined iterative design.
>man, i'm in Ukraine
Why'd you guys conveniently omit the fact that Mila Jovovich is half-Serb? Do you have any idea how much cum I've wasted to a half-Serb because of Cossack perfidy?
So the AIM-9X (I 2000s, II 2010s, II+ 2020s) = AIM-9D (1968)
I think it's more that when these kind of things get adopted they have a whole calculated life spam, where the initial versions have known issues where they will improve upon in the future. Govs don't just develop stuff for a decade then go "oh well new tech is here, just dump what we got", they do planned upgrades on what they have.
Whats the spg in the picture?
photoshop, it's a type 90 hull with a naval turret.
being a tank hull with a naval turret doesn't otomatically make it photoshop
Yes. But OP is in fact PS.
That Otomatic is a compact design made even compacter for that ADT prototype. And ofcourse it's just 76.2 mm, nowhere near the +100mm of the OP's pic.
p-51 fighters in Gulf War would be ultimate Kino
Imagine A-1 Skyraiders over Iraq’s ports.
Let's see Russian weaponry.
And? Who controls Artemovsk chud?
Bakhmut will be Russian forever. Just like Kherson.
it's fucking hilarious how this turned into a reaction image. because of just one fucking thread on PrepHole
I have no idea who controls Artemovsk chud, because there is no Artemovsk, chud.
Technology has stagnated. There isn’t any huge improvements to be made
We are still using metallic cartridges which is 1850s technology
40s to 70s brought jets and computers
70s to 20s brought... better computers and stealth memes
It's called Abrahams.
That's a bit like saying "Look how the iPhone 14 shits all over the Nokia 1110. Both were made in 2007!" They might have been both produced in 2007, but you're talking about the iPhone that has been consistently upgraded with new technology since 2007 whereas the Nokia 1110 was old technology that was at the end of its lifecycle.
Obviously it is a bit different because it is mostly upgrades rather than actual new models, but the point stands that each "system" you describe has been upgraded since introduction, sometimes radically so, and it was often far ahead of its competitors when introduced to begin with. .
>It's insane how old most of the weapons used in Ukraine are.
I think the issue here is that in mechanical terms the design of a lot of weapons has gone from a steady improvement to a bit of a plateau. We aren't driving 120 ton tanks with 150mm cannons, armor isn't carbon nano space polymers, fighter jets aren't going Mach 4 and the average howitzer isn't 250mm's.
Yes I am sure if we scrap everything and start from scratch it will all be 10% better, safer or more efficient but they'll basically be the same vehicles we use today. The real improvements of the day are all technological, communications, optics, sensors, computers, guidance systems. You take pretty much any western vehicle from the 70's or 80's and you can bring it up to modern standards just by adding tech shit to it. Like anything new that replaces the Abrams or Bradley on its Xth upgrade package isn't actually going to be so much better that it is worth 150 billion dollars.
Of course there are exceptions like stealth fighters, any fighter from the 80's is going to be second string. Not because the new one is faster or more maneuverable but because it is invisible. If it wasn't for stealth, you could probably make even an F4 Phantom viable on the modern battlefield by stuffing it full of modern tech.
To me, it is more like innovation is taking place within certain confines from standardization. It reminds me of the Phoebus cartel which standardized lightbulb life at 1,000 hours. The cartel prevented companies from competing on lightbulb life, but it also allowed companies to standardize sockets and allowed companies to focus on other attributes like durability, price, availability, and so forth. Same thing happened with PC compatibility in the 1990's. IBM tried to standardize on something so that everyone else had to follow their lead but all the "IBM Clone" manufacturers got together and standardized on another setup which forced IBM to back down and work within the entire industry.
The reason I mention this is because we have these standardized systems within NATO. 155MM Shells, 120MM Cannon, 105MM Cannon, etc.. On the one hand, the standardization prevents innovation in new weapons, but it also challenges manufacturers to compete on price, availability, lifespan, fuel economy, and so forth. It also forces new weapon systems to be true improvements over others, not expensive dead-ends or unnecessary upgrades. Often with new technology you get these dilemmas like "Should I spend money to completely upgrade my 155MM artillery for the new 200MM artillery because the new 200MM has a shell that is GPS guided or should I wait and hope the 155MM gets a GPS guided shell sometime in the future."
With this cartel-like behavior of NATO, it instead forces manufacturers to develop within certain constraints for products to be successful/adopted. It doesn't mean innovation doesn't happen, but it is harder to see a 10% improvement in fuel efficacy and a 30% reduction in RCS in the new blocks of F-16 when you compare it to the 1970's when those improvements would only come from the development and purchase of an entirely new airframe, including the costs and new production required for that airframe.
Does that perspective make sense?
>The reason I mention this is because we have these standardized systems within NATO. 155MM Shells, 120MM Cannon, 105MM Cannon, etc.. On the one hand, the standardization prevents innovation in new weapons
You know NATO adopts new standards pretty regularly, right? If someone built a super light weight, long range 240mm mortar and the US decided they really wanted it for some reasons 240mm would be made a NATO standard. Plus weird non-standard calibers aren't exactly unheard of, the AMX-10RC uses a non-standard 105mm cartridge that isn't interoperable with the L7 guns.
>You know NATO adopts new standards pretty regularly, right? If someone built a super light weight, long range 240mm mortar and the US decided they really wanted it for some reasons 240mm would be made a NATO standard.
That's what I was trying to acknowledge with the line "It also forces new weapon systems to be true improvements over others, not expensive dead-ends or unnecessary upgrades." Nothing prevents adoption of new systems. Like, say, the F-35, but with NATO being such a large cartel, if a weapon system uses a non-standard /non-backwards compatible/non-upgradable munition, feature, etc.. then it makes it less likely to be widely adopted and successful and therefore less likely to be built in the first place.
I'm trying to say it provides a bit of a "pushback" against new technology and a bias for technology that is a major improvement, backwards compatible, can be added to old equipment as an upgrade, can be sold to a lot of countries, can be used on a lot of vehicles, etc...
Well, the AMX is just France being France. They weren’t under integrated nato command at the time, so French stuff isn’t necessarily Stanag compliant.
155mm is from 1942
>The caliber originated in France after it was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–1871. A French artillery committee met on 2 February 1874 to discuss new models for French fortress and siege artillery, among which there was a weapon in the 14–16 centimetres (5.5–6.3 in) caliber range (later it became known as the De Bange 155 mm cannon)
imagine Mark V tanks fighting T-64s
Development dates are not production dates are not the end of system modifications. Numberfags are retarded.