there is at least one janny with the 'tism
it should be framed as >vgh, what WEAPON can PENETRATE undetected though >1000KM of Russian airspace and do THIS?
and then something-something-tactical advantage
there is at least one janny with the 'tism
it should be framed as >vgh, what WEAPON can PENETRATE undetected though >1000KM of Russian airspace and do THIS?
and then something-something-tactical advantage
Vid rel, someone is seething over the likely result of this thread's WEAPON being used to strike a ballistic missile (WEAPON) facility. Expect the increased piggie*~~*~~)) posting.
Cumrat, I already told you in another thread that was rightfully deleted because it it off-topic to talk about weapons on a weapons board - it is a planned, regular utilisation of old missile stocks, happens every day, nothing to see here, move along.
>Vid rel, someone is seething over the likely result of this thread's WEAPON being used to strike a ballistic missile (WEAPON) facility. Expect the increased piggie*~~*~~)) posting.
This is the kind of strategic bombing that's been missing from this war.
It's really unforgivable that tanks are being reconditioned in factories and those factories don't get bombed as fast as they're repaired.
And for extra insult to injure, the plant is sandwhiched by residential areas, and some of the missiles they produced use hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid in their fuel mixes.
Not much. The main difference is that since you don't need it to be air launched or launched from a VLS cell or similar you can make it as cumbersome as you want which indirectly means it will probably be far more conducive to flying long ranges.
This question was asked instantly the moment the term "suicide drone" was coined. The answer remains the same. There isn't a difference, it's a just a matter of the speaker choosing to emphasize different aspects of a design or role.
I think it's journos/laymen who have no idea about weaponry who then start writing about weapons using terminology they know, they know what a drone is but to them a cruise missile is some mystery device you hear about on the news
Drone implies a datalink or AI that allow for active control of the vehicle during flight, the ability to select targets after launch by the remote operator or AI and these control allows for actions not common to cruise missiles like some loitering capabilities.
If your long range drone has no cameras, ability to select targets after launch, no 2ways data link and can only target a preselected target, non reusable than it's not a drone nor a suicide drone but a cruise missile.
At this point it's just the form factor.
Not having to jam your long range attack thingy into a tube makes it much easier and cheaper.
The downside is that it's cumbersome to handle and not as quick and convenient to fire.
I will initiate a 24-hour goon session if we get footage of these demolishing Lenin's mausoleum. 48-hours if that rotting homosexual is confirmed destroyed.
>fourth image I'm not going to post but it's the turbine that's supposed a JetCat P400-PRO made in Germany
why? don't be goofy, posting it on /k/ has no influence in the grand scheme of ziggerscreaming about german aid
Supposedly the warhead
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1755142385338655230
fourth image I'm not going to post but it's the turbine that's supposed a JetCat P400-PRO made in Germany
This "the 4th image just isn't interesting" makes instantly think this is some sort of psyop.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Not him but you can click through to twitter and see for yourself. It's really not all that interesting. Maybe if you know a lot about jet engines you could glean something from it, but it just looks like a dented metal housing to me.
3 months ago
Anonymous
Then go look at it, its just a cylinder with the logo name.
i work on drones used by ukraine. i replied in case OP thought the optics of the german-origin engine actually matters. other comment you replied to is just obvious FUD/bait that you took.
Every piece of military equipment Russians use today was made in Kharkiv
The lead engineer of the diesel tank engine design they've used for half a century was a Greek Ukrainian from Kharkiv.
He was later killed when Stalin got suspicious of the Greeks, checked the time and found that it was pogrom o'clock. After the NKVD grabbed him and gave him their usual treatment he confessed to a variety of treasonous capital crimes, for which he was shot. His wife was told he had a heart attack.
Probably part of the transportability/knock down part of the design. They'd have to plumb in the wings to the main tank or deal with switching in flight.
The issue with transportation could be fixed with a sealed pipe connection for the wings.
But I can't decide about the survivability issue, since it will be easier to hit bigger wings than small body. But with fuel placed in wings drone size could be reduced so it will be harder to target it
Of course, having a pure bank and yank setup for a shitty kamikaze drone works just fine. What I mean by that is the winglets would help reduce wingtip vortices as well as provide yaw stability, whereas the vertical stabilizer only does the latter.
Winglets do the same as increasing a wing's aspect ratio without having to increase wingspan. This is extremely beneficial in heavier aircraft as more wingspan means more weight, which means wings have to be stiffer, which means more weight from the reinforcement.
In a relatively small drone, you can always just add a little more wing and get the same benefits of a winglet.
This may be a stupid question but why don't they just copy Have Blue? We know it works well, even against modern Russian radar, and there are a number of cad models of varying accuracy floating around. Surely Ukraine could just copy one of those for their missiles and cover them in vantablack paint. Am I missing something here?
I'll wait for the virgin prop engine vs the Chad turbo jet engine meme
Seems to be pretty good at hurting Russian hydrocarbon infrastructure.
They just hit another factory or facility of some sort didn't they?
But for some reason threads mentioning it are being deleted.
there is at least one janny with the 'tism
it should be framed as
>vgh, what WEAPON can PENETRATE undetected though >1000KM of Russian airspace and do THIS?
and then something-something-tactical advantage
The janny is right, OPs should have a bit more effort out into it. Just indeed put WEAPON into the OP instead of low effort OPs.
https://english.nv.ua/nation/explosion-at-russian-missile-factory-video-50390873.html
Vid rel, someone is seething over the likely result of this thread's WEAPON being used to strike a ballistic missile (WEAPON) facility. Expect the increased piggie*~~*~~)) posting.
Cumrat, I already told you in another thread that was rightfully deleted because it it off-topic to talk about weapons on a weapons board - it is a planned, regular utilisation of old missile stocks, happens every day, nothing to see here, move along.
>Vid rel, someone is seething over the likely result of this thread's WEAPON being used to strike a ballistic missile (WEAPON) facility. Expect the increased piggie*~~*~~)) posting.
This is the kind of strategic bombing that's been missing from this war.
It's really unforgivable that tanks are being reconditioned in factories and those factories don't get bombed as fast as they're repaired.
I really want to know what struck it since it's 1300km from the Ukrainian border.
Unfortunately it is likely either partisan sabotage work or SBU operating behind enemy lines as they occasionally do
90% it's a Chernobyl type of failure during the testing
Why were they testing a missile launch at 10:00PM?
This. And that .webm of the explosion doesn't look like a test at all to me.
>Chernobyl type of failure
Plausible.
>Later, Russian emergency services explained the explosion as "rocket engines being tested as planned" at the facility.
NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS
>IVAN YOU MORON I TOLD YOU TO TEST THE ROCKET'S ENGINE NOT THE WARHE-ACK!
The manufacturing plant for Topol-Ms and Iskanders was destroyed.
Are you kidding?
Nope. Place also produced their newest ICBMs.
My boner is out of control anon
And for extra insult to injure, the plant is sandwhiched by residential areas, and some of the missiles they produced use hydrazine and red fuming nitric acid in their fuel mixes.
I'm going to hold off on calling the factory destroyed before we get proper fotos of the aftermath, but I'm sure it will not be pretty
Not factory, sadly. Testing grounds. It really could be an engine test
>source russian news
suure
Source Google maps
What distinguishes a long range jet powered attack drone from a cruise missile?
Not much. The main difference is that since you don't need it to be air launched or launched from a VLS cell or similar you can make it as cumbersome as you want which indirectly means it will probably be far more conducive to flying long ranges.
this jet engine costs 10k euro
lawnmower drone costs more so this drone cost roughly 1.5 million be experats are said
learn to speak first, animal
if you call 500km range thing a it drone it is no more a subject to the late INF treaty
I think a cruise missile is fire and forget and goes straight for a preset target, while a drone has remote control and loiter capability.
This question was asked instantly the moment the term "suicide drone" was coined. The answer remains the same. There isn't a difference, it's a just a matter of the speaker choosing to emphasize different aspects of a design or role.
I think it's journos/laymen who have no idea about weaponry who then start writing about weapons using terminology they know, they know what a drone is but to them a cruise missile is some mystery device you hear about on the news
Drone implies a datalink or AI that allow for active control of the vehicle during flight, the ability to select targets after launch by the remote operator or AI and these control allows for actions not common to cruise missiles like some loitering capabilities.
If your long range drone has no cameras, ability to select targets after launch, no 2ways data link and can only target a preselected target, non reusable than it's not a drone nor a suicide drone but a cruise missile.
so tlam since block 4 is a drone for you?
Could count as one
At this point it's just the form factor.
Not having to jam your long range attack thingy into a tube makes it much easier and cheaper.
The downside is that it's cumbersome to handle and not as quick and convenient to fire.
I will initiate a 24-hour goon session if we get footage of these demolishing Lenin's mausoleum. 48-hours if that rotting homosexual is confirmed destroyed.
>demolishing Lenin's mausoleum
I'd be in favour of establishing a national statutory holiday to celebrate when that happens.
Lenin literally created ukraine though
sure thing, buddy bot
Kys, vatBlack person.
Kyiv invented Rus' and Mongols ruined it.
But Putin said evil westoids created Ukraine to make Russia weak, he had ancient maps to prove it and everything.
cool story, mongol
Come on, best absolute thing is to build a McDonalds over it. Using his glass coffin as a table.
Nah. It's gotta be Pizza Hut.
Ok. I conceed. With a giant painting of your pic of course.
>Red square gets drowned in formaldehyde fumes when lenin's wither husk lights up
The israelites love Lenin so they’ll prevent damage to it at all costs. They planned on moving it to New Kazahria until they underestimated Russia.
Commies get the rope
>preferably a rope tied to one of these jet powered strike-drones
Images of drone wreckage in question
Supposedly the warhead
https://twitter.com/TheDeadDistrict/status/1755142385338655230
fourth image I'm not going to post but it's the turbine that's supposed a JetCat P400-PRO made in Germany
>fourth image I'm not going to post but it's the turbine that's supposed a JetCat P400-PRO made in Germany
why? don't be goofy, posting it on /k/ has no influence in the grand scheme of ziggerscreaming about german aid
I just don't think it's as interesting as the other images is all. There's nothing else to it.
This "the 4th image just isn't interesting" makes instantly think this is some sort of psyop.
Not him but you can click through to twitter and see for yourself. It's really not all that interesting. Maybe if you know a lot about jet engines you could glean something from it, but it just looks like a dented metal housing to me.
Then go look at it, its just a cylinder with the logo name.
NTA, but here's the 4th image. The dude literally gave us a link, you lazy fricks
i work on drones used by ukraine. i replied in case OP thought the optics of the german-origin engine actually matters. other comment you replied to is just obvious FUD/bait that you took.
could it be repaired? will the JetCat fly again?
Where's the inlet for the jet turbine?
It's probably on the underside like on a Tomahawk
>engine made in Germany
nice
hope we'll eventually send some Taurus too
What does the glove do, does the drone have hands
>What does the glove do
It comes off.
Imagine when we start seeing (or rather not) stealth drones.
Ukraine was basically the brains of the Soviet Union, wasn't it?
Every piece of military equipment Russians use today was made in Kharkiv
The lead engineer of the diesel tank engine design they've used for half a century was a Greek Ukrainian from Kharkiv.
He was later killed when Stalin got suspicious of the Greeks, checked the time and found that it was pogrom o'clock. After the NKVD grabbed him and gave him their usual treatment he confessed to a variety of treasonous capital crimes, for which he was shot. His wife was told he had a heart attack.
Kinda reminds me of a Delta Dart
Serious question - why not store additional fuel in the wings?
Probably part of the transportability/knock down part of the design. They'd have to plumb in the wings to the main tank or deal with switching in flight.
The issue with transportation could be fixed with a sealed pipe connection for the wings.
But I can't decide about the survivability issue, since it will be easier to hit bigger wings than small body. But with fuel placed in wings drone size could be reduced so it will be harder to target it
Interesting choice to have a rudder-less vertical stabilizer instead of the winglets like on Shahed
You only need the rudder for taxiing, so why complicate it?
Of course, having a pure bank and yank setup for a shitty kamikaze drone works just fine. What I mean by that is the winglets would help reduce wingtip vortices as well as provide yaw stability, whereas the vertical stabilizer only does the latter.
Winglets do the same as increasing a wing's aspect ratio without having to increase wingspan. This is extremely beneficial in heavier aircraft as more wingspan means more weight, which means wings have to be stiffer, which means more weight from the reinforcement.
In a relatively small drone, you can always just add a little more wing and get the same benefits of a winglet.
War crime!
This may be a stupid question but why don't they just copy Have Blue? We know it works well, even against modern Russian radar, and there are a number of cad models of varying accuracy floating around. Surely Ukraine could just copy one of those for their missiles and cover them in vantablack paint. Am I missing something here?