Is there no current missile that fits this criteria?

Is there no current missile that fits this criteria? I really don't understand why they need to design a brand new missile from scratch

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Oh dear, if the UK is in charge of building it I'm afraid the war will be over before they've pulled something out of their arses years overdue and billions overbudget.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This is a stupid escalation that will just piss Russia off even more. The current HIMARS is clearly enough

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Is pissing off russia bad?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Russia reacts very primitively to such stimuli.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That field was full of Nazis

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          That field was full of Nazis

          They just helped plowing the field, but Nazi hohols responded by bombing Donetsk children.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Ukraine is playing the good guy in this war. The minute they stoop to monke levels and start lobbing rockets at civilians or non-military targets in Russia, the US would likely cut support.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >non-military targets
          And why would they start doing that, when the US is giving them the world's most advanced satellite surveillance information that probably tracks every depot and storage hub in Russia?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Frick if I know. Why does Putin do it? I'm not implying some greater conspiracy here, it's just a known fact we prefer a slow burn of Russia. We could send enough aid to decimate them by the end of the month if we wanted to.
            Giving Ukraine the ability to strike Russian targets outside of their borders eliminates the argument that they're just some poor defender against a massive superpower (lol).

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The stated reason the us haven't sent the real long range stuff is because they don't trust the ukies not to start shooting them at Moscow or some shit.

              Ukraine pinky promises not to do that but the Americans haven't grown big enough balls yet to trust them on that.

              The bongs seems to trust the ukies enough tho...

              Or they just think that would be real funny

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >We could send enough aid to decimate them by the end of the month if we wanted to.
              With what personnel and what logistics train?
              Oh right, you literally go on /misc/ and believe shit like "NATO bunkers under every chicken coop" and "every Ukrainian success is actually a glow op" because you've replaced reason with convenience

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Why does Putin do it?
              Because he's trying to win by any means necessary. He is simply being irrational, and his power structure has literally zero checks or balances to it. It's just Putin and the people who agree with Putin because everyone else is dead, in prison, contemplating the texture of the sidewalk from their 20th story condo, or scrubbing latrines.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Why does Putin do it?
              Because Russian guided munitions can't reliably hit anything smaller than an apartment building?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ukraine is only playing the role of a buffer in the NATO-Russia conflict. The Ukrainians are doing well and fighting bravely, but they are only carrying out orders from above. As soon as NATO considers the goals achieved or unacceptably costly for itself, for the Ukrainians will only wave flags of support. To exacerbate the conflict by escalating the supply of weapons dangerous to Russia would rather force Russia to take harsher measures against Ukraine and, consequently, increase Ukrainian casualties.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are a homosexual.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly the point I'm making. Sending long range missiles defeats the slow burn we've been trying to achieve. Russia is dumb and bold enough to keep sending men and equipment into losing battles, why escalate?

            The stated reason the us haven't sent the real long range stuff is because they don't trust the ukies not to start shooting them at Moscow or some shit.

            Ukraine pinky promises not to do that but the Americans haven't grown big enough balls yet to trust them on that.

            The bongs seems to trust the ukies enough tho...

            Or they just think that would be real funny

            A wise choice. At the end of the day, no slavs could be trusted. Keep sending what we're sending in the way of artillery, vehicles, etc. but sending the long range missiles would solve nothing in terms of the current goal.

            >We could send enough aid to decimate them by the end of the month if we wanted to.
            With what personnel and what logistics train?
            Oh right, you literally go on /misc/ and believe shit like "NATO bunkers under every chicken coop" and "every Ukrainian success is actually a glow op" because you've replaced reason with convenience

            Not like we've had bases in Europe for the last 70 years to fight a ground war with Russia (USSR at the time).

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              If you are making "exactly the point" of someone who is trolling in the most blatantly satirical, boring way possible, you may want to reconsider the legitimacy of the point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Look, nobody here is interesting in curb stomping Russia except dumb Europoors that want to do it solely either out of pride or revenge, which I can understand to an extent, but look at it objectively.
                Why stop your enemy when they're making a mistake? Russia has been throwing men into meat grinders since the beginning of the war. They're army is decimated almost literally. They've destroyed/lost 10's of thousands of military vehicles. They're running out of prisoners and volunteers to send to the front. Soldiers are being sent to the frontline with Chinese airsoft/LARP equipment.
                And this is just with us sending literal Cold War shit that's been sitting in a warehouse before you or I was even born. Truthfully, why escalate? Ukraine is doing terrific all things considered with the current level of support were giving. Again, keeping in mind we want to drain Russia of both it's current ability, and ability to fight in the future.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Truthfully, why escalate?
                A fast resolution to the war with all NATO interests achieved is infinitely more economically profitable. Currently reconstruction will cost hundreds of billions for both sides and deprive the Russian market, which was (pre 08) extremely promising.
                Decapitating strikes on Moscow to restore that progress would be obviously preferable to tens of thousands of dead or emigrated Russians who can't work or consume effectively. Using old ammo is great, but spending that doesn't make it isn't magically superior to actually having the old ammo in possession. Even rotted weapons are a deterrent - ask Russia, which just threw its own Soviet legacy deterrent away.

                The real challenge is weak and fractious leadership, not confused motives. Several important figures in NATO are simply too cowardly and worried about escalation to act properly; that does not make this some vague "strategic decision" to "create a slow burn." Ukraine was supposed to lose already, they hate being forced into any kind of action, sorry. That's why those same leaders are trying to find any off-ramp they can to sabotage or abandon Ukraine and force an early peace; it's good for business and doesn't require "escalation" (even if it would do immeasurable long term damage to world hegemony & stability, they just don't care).

                >look at it objectively
                Realists assuming decisions are made for realist reasons are simply incorrect, as is corroborated by the declassified and documented personal correspondences of world leaders throughout history. World-shattering decisions come down to a handful of peoples' mistakes or misapprehensions.
                Yes, Ukraine winning slowly is better strategically than Russia bowing out after catastrophic defeat if you expect a NATO-Russia war as a follow-on conflict, but NATO hasn't expected such a war since the 80s, and neither does Russia. Your "objective" calculus isn't even using the right numbers.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The reason euros want to curb stomp Russia is partially because of historical bad blood yes.

                It also because Europe can not afford the precedent Russia winning would create. That you can once again invade your neighbour because "Muh historic clay" or "liberate muh people" and other such irredentist garbage.

                Because if that can of worm was opened it would threaten the stability of the entire continent. Because everyone has irredentist claims on everyone else. Thus no one who likes the stability of the current system where how the map looked in the past is collectively agreed to be irrelevant will naturally violently oppose ant threat to this system. Which the Ukraine war is.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cope moron, I'm American and I'm 100% positive there are a lot of Americans like me who want to see Russia burn. Give Ukraine their nukes back.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              The current goal of the EU countries is to prove to Russia that Europe no longer tolerate wars of expansion. Thus they send as much as they think they can spare while still maintaining their own defence.

              The problem being that since the fall of communism western Europe has lost much of its military industrial capacity due to lack of use.

              Currently a lot of that capacity it being brought back online. For example BAE systems Hägglunds has more than tripled it's manufacturing capability turning out 1 CV90 per day by running the production line 24/7. Simular things is happening to a lot of other defence contractors all trying to both refill existing armouries and the excess/ what is being replaced is being sent to Ukraine.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >the slow burn we've been trying to achieve
              this war wasn't our idea, the reality is that russia was never important or powerful enough to justify some devious strategy to destroy or weaken it. it's already a pitiful shithole, as evidenced by everything that's happened over the past year+ and we have bigger fish to fry

              the only 'slow burn' aspect was us wanting to boil the frog on military assistance, to keep the risk of direct conflict low, and that's worked out pretty well. if the war ended tomorrow, that would be objectively great. russia's future looks plenty shit already, and doing them over was never a priority in the first place.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                i agree with this, but i don't want to lose support from the Ukies by boiling the frog TOO slowly - over the last year they have demonstrated that they are incredibly trustworthy users of the aid we give, and the fact they stopped at the border with Belgorod and left it alone means i'm perfectly comfortable giving them strategically improved weapons and trusting that if they use them across the border it's a specific and necessary attack.

                since, y'know, they're clearly more civilized than Russia

                also FYI the frogs that stayed in the warm water were lobotomized beforehand; the experiment was about finding the differences between reflexes (i.e. even lobotomized frogs will jump out of hot water) and what the brain does (i.e. make frogs jump out of uncomfortably warm water even if you increase the temperature slowly - because they actually do that)

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Slow burn isn't what has been happening. Escalation has been consistent, and has been the aim since last year. This is obvious once you look back and realised what countries were doing as opposed to what they were saying. Longer range missiles absolutely solve more in terms of the current goals, just as the shorter range stuff has had an attritional effect on RF, longer range stuff would. We are months past general consensus that there isn't an invalid Russian target for Ukraine, if Ukraine seems it critical for its defence.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >force Russia to take harsher measures against Ukraine
            Yeah, frick, maybe they'll start raping and looting and knocking out the powergrid during winter.

            Shocking behavior.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >force Russia to take harsher measures against Ukraine
            What are they gonna do? Bomb civilians? Attack energy infrastructure in winter with hopes of freezing them? Invade Ukraine? Use thermobaric bombs?
            Russia can't escalate because short of nuclear weapons they have nothing left to escalate with, they have already done every possible escalation and anyone who says that it would force Russia to "take this war seriously" is talking out of their ass because Russia has already sent their best forces at the start of the invasion and they don't have a secret army hidden somewhere no matter what vatniks claim

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >would rather force Russia to take harsher measures against Ukraine
            do you think they'll open their warehouses full of thousands of T-14s and secret alien tech, and send in the million extra troops that they've been saving for a western provocation such as this

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          you are a fricking moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >consneeding
            >no argument
            Ok moron.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The vatnik mind cannot conceptualize targeting things other than apartment buildings and kindergartens.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >piss Russia off even more
      What are they gonna do? Attack Ukraine?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They might declare war instead of an SMO, or worse, raise both eyebrows

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I agree comrade. Ukraine and the decadent west cannot afford to piss Putin off any more. This is the final last terminal red line. For real this time.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >escalation
      Oh no. I hope we don't escalate this against a country that has already fully invaded its neighbor and threatens nukes every day.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >This is a stupid escalation that will just piss Russia off even more.
      good
      Putin pussy won't do anything

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Russia needs to pay in blood for supporting commies in Korea and Vietnam, and Assad in Syria.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the commies in Vietnam are alright - we're allies now and they have incredible food

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >that will just piss Russia off even more.
      So what ?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >that will just piss Russia off even more
      And what are they going to do? The only trump card they have left is nukes, which if used would effectively end the Russian state.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What are they going to do about it? Start a war in Europe?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's not an escalation but it's definitely stupid. By the time this missile is designed, Russia will be balkanized already

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      EYEBROWS TO FULL AFTERBURNER
      DISENGAGE GLOVE SAFETIES

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >The current HIMARS is clearly enough
      if it would be enough, russia would have retreated. but alas violence is the language those animals understand and they clearly haven't been hit hard enough

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The current ones are made with American parts and the US don't whant to send long range strategic missiles to ukraine.
    So the bongs whant to cobble together a token missile to send and trigger the escalation step so the Americans can send real missiles/be able to say they sent them first.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this "sending token shit so the other countries an send 50 of its stuff" cuckening is getting really tiring

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        But it does work doesn't it. And it isn't like the bongs have the economy to send real numbers of the biggest stuff

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          I think that's gonna be part of the selection process.

          I'm not an expert but I suspect the criteria that the bongs are looking for are

          1. Cheap enough so they can make enough of them

          2. Accurate enough to nor hit the school next to the target. Aka a cep of not garbage

          3. Enough range to actually hit strategic targets.

          Won't be a world beater but they are aiming for a good enough

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I realised after posting that this would also be completely new production so they wouldn't have time to sell of all the tooling and can actualy produce them.
            The range goal looks to me like they are aiming to give ukraine something to hit the funny bridge

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Ukraine have already got something to hit the funny bridge, they have demonstrated that capability recently. Bridge is just a matter of time.

              This is honestly about hitting other stuff.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukraine have already got something to hit the funny bridge
                And that would be? Genuine question.
                Besides, the problem is actually decommissioning the bridge. Hitting it is (relatively) easy, it's hitting it with something that makes it unusable that is the hard part.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                We don't know. They launched it. It hit a target in Crimea, and from it's trajectory they launched it from west of Odessa. Quite West. It was one of the many moments when Ukraine was clearly testing the viability of homegrown tech, be it an adaption of preexisting stuff or whatever.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think they have anything that can reach the bridge and actually cause significant damage. Storm Shadow has a relatively small warhead, I don't know if multiple hits would even be enough. GLSDB is smaller with less range. Maybe a couple of those retrofitted Soviet recon drones could manage it, but who knows how many of those they have, and how accurate they can be.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Blame other countries for not just sending it and taking the political blunt in the first place.

        Exactly the point I'm making. Sending long range missiles defeats the slow burn we've been trying to achieve. Russia is dumb and bold enough to keep sending men and equipment into losing battles, why escalate?
        [...]
        A wise choice. At the end of the day, no slavs could be trusted. Keep sending what we're sending in the way of artillery, vehicles, etc. but sending the long range missiles would solve nothing in terms of the current goal.
        [...]
        Not like we've had bases in Europe for the last 70 years to fight a ground war with Russia (USSR at the time).

        >Slow burn
        Anon, sending Ukrianians off to die is a nice cope Russians like to bring up, but the reality is if the west can inflict significantly higher attritional rates further out from the frontline upon Russia they can slow any advances even more.
        But also you're assuming the west wants this to drag out, arguably cleaning it up a bit faster is still well within the range of ruining Russia's military strength.
        Arguably a huge chunk has been removed already, I think Ukriane has already paid for this war in Russian vehicle attritional losses alone

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So that's why the bongs always pop the cherry on this kind of thing. Break the taboo and make other countries look bad so they're forced into sending them.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        With their current millitary industry it isn't much that they can actualy send. But being the first to send shit makes it so they can portray themselves as being leaders of the European defence partnership.
        (Also they have nooks and are the furthest away from the Russians so they are also kinda safe in doing this

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Bongs have always been there as a state willing to escalate. They're just pseudo US state which is not worth attacking due to its allies but can act independently of the US and thus not incur the same worldwide risks as the largest superpower would if it did the same.
        If the US alone was pushing this, then they just get called warmongers in the future, possibly ruining Chinese relations. The UK doesn't give a shit about a label like that from Russia or China, because it's trade with those nations can just run through one of its allies indirectly even if sanctions were applied.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If the English (Poland and balts) didn't do anything prior and at the start of the invasion the rest Europe would have looked the other way and pretended it didn't happen like in 2014. It was a good wake up call for the rest of the EU

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I just watched a video on the kirov class last night and the SU had 300 mile range "shipwreck" missiles in the 80s what happened to that tech?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      And we had ICBM's in the 50's that had a 15000km range
      The tech has always been there, it's just expensive

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Take an existing platform, set up GPS based geofencing.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    pic related please
    >missiles at the Kremlin
    popular traffic light sticker in central asia

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    America doesn't want to commit to sending it

    Bongs don't have anything to send in the category because they previously didn't deem it necessary to develop one in-house. They now have a reason to develop one (the need to give them to Ukraine without the amerimutts being able to stop them).

    Thus they are willing to spend the money to aquire these capabilities so that they can give Ukraine their bridge killing missiles.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There is a missile that does it, ATACMS, and the US won't provide it because we don't need putin finding out the hard way whether his nukes work or not, ukraine has already shown a willingness to exact revenge on the russian state, and while that's understandable, it's still risky business.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Just a metal tube with fuel inside it innit whats the big deal

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >literal who twitter
    There is Shadow Storm which has 560km range and 450kg warhead BUT that is for the UK only. The export version has 250km range. So that isn't going to work.

    Also what is wrong with making new missiles that could be sold?

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I sure do love my filters.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >moronic murricans being scared of nukes
    please putin not the nukes

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They're brown, don't worry.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >ukraine launching drones at moscow
    >putin too much of a pussy to do anything
    >nooo don't give them long range missiles
    >think of the nooks, I'm going to shit myself

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    guys they are back

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Give Ukraine Minuteman III's and several dozen associated nuclear bombs and bid them what is necessary to defend their nation from subhuman vatnig horde.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Quick lads, to the sheds!

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >That map
    The Eternal Lithuanian strikes again

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    wrong ATACMS official range is 300km but its not the max range. Maybe a reason why ukraine doesnt get them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Are you illiterate?

      Op isn't saying the UK is gonna send ATACMS or some shit.

      He's literally asking why they would need to develop a ner missile when things like ATACMS already exists.

      The reason the bongs are doing this is because the Americans aren't sending ATACMS.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        nta but what about buying those himars launcher compatible ballistic missiles SL makes? i’m sure it wouldn’t take too much work to make them software compatible, probably less time than it took the germans to upgrade their MARS II mrls

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          nevermind i didn’t realise thise missiles were nowhere near ready to deploy

          the commies in Vietnam are alright - we're allies now and they have incredible food

          the united states doesn’t actually care if you’re “communist” as long as you align with their interests, and both the us and vietnam are united in hating china

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            US relations with Vietnam go a bit further than just alignment against China given how much effort the US has put into cleaning up the consequences of the Vietnam war

            there's a level of admission there that Henry Kissinger is moronic and so was his "containment" bullshit that destroyed decades of US foreign relations and created enemies of the US all over the place out of people who beforehand couldn't have given less of a shit

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