Storm Shadow: the longest-ranged NATO weapon in Ukrainian hands

>Exclusive: Britain has delivered long-range ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles to Ukraine ahead of expected counteroffensive, sources say
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/11/politics/uk-storm-shadow-cruise-missiles-ukraine/index.html

The United Kingdom has supplied Ukraine with multiple Storm Shadow cruise missiles, giving Ukrainian forces a new long-range strike capability in advance of a highly anticipated counteroffensive against Russian forces, multiple senior Western officials told CNN.
...
The Storm Shadow is a long-range cruise missile with stealth capabilities, jointly developed by the UK and France, which is typically launched from the air. With a firing range in excess of 250km, or 155 miles, it is just short of the 185-mile range capability of the US-made surface-to-surface Army Tactical Missile Systems, or ATACMS, that Ukraine has long asked for.
...
A Western official told CNN that the UK has received assurances from the Ukrainian government that these missiles will be used only within Ukrainian sovereign territory and not inside Russia. UK officials have made frequent public statements identifying Crimea as Ukrainian sovereign territory, describing it as “illegally annexed.”
...
The missile is “a real game changer from a range perspective,” a senior US military official told CNN and gives Kyiv a capability it has been requesting since the outset of the war.
...
According to MBDA Missile Systems, the European company which manufactures the missile, the Storm Shadow is a “deep strike weapon” capable of “being operated day and night in all weathers,” that features an advanced navigation system to ensure accuracy.

“After launch, the weapon descends to terrain hugging altitude to avoid detection,” MBDA’s website states. “On approaching the target, its onboard infrared seeker matches the target image with the stored picture to ensure a precision strike and minimal collateral damage.”

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

    Ammo depot status?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Do they still operate ammo depots worth using it on? They already had to disperse them due to HIMARS.
      I expect fuel infrastructure and rail depot strikes

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They probably do, just inland. Which means they have to get out of dodge again to prevent more disasters thus worsening their logistics even more

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        They probably just moved the piles out of himars range.
        I'm looking forwards to the fireworks.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      NO PANIC

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Priggy over here having issues getting his nuggies when I'm called "3 For Free" at my local McDonalds eating establishment.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the purpose of this thread is to make a thread for discussion of this weapon without undue interference

    since this is not a warriortard thread, it will not be capriciously taken down by that knobhead when the narrative goes against him

    carry on

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nvm anon I just assumed the worst.
      My post

      You gonna delete this thread too anon?

      Carry on.

      Armatard sucks donkey dicks.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You gonna delete this thread too anon?

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    remember this?
    the rumors might be true after all
    this could be how Storm Shadow would be delivered

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >350miles
      Is it 250 or 350 miles, or is there more than one variant, or is that other anon right in that the terrain hugging drops it to 250.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        it is a heady combination of
        >manufacturer's claims
        >best range performance in optimum conditions
        >aircraft-launched boost
        and
        >the MoD knows and it's not telling (picrel)
        so take all NATO "maximum ranges" with a hefty dose of salt

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >so take all NATO "maximum ranges" with a hefty dose of salt
          theyre probably longer

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            that was his point

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              No, my point is that we don't really know
              There are actually Western weapons out there that fall short (literally) of their manufacturers' claims

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the general pattern for MBDA is to understate ranges significantly

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And I know of specific examples where they fricked up, so...

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          LMAO, vatBlack person projecting russian behaviour upon others again.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        250km is supposedly the range of the Export variant.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        250 is for the export version aka those Ukies are getting.
        Also I belive it's 250km not miles.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Short ranged for this type of missile but still better than anything Ukraine has now

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >aka those Ukies are getting.
          I doubt it, if they've been given by the UK they'd have come from RAF stocks, i.e the full fat version.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      What actually goes into integrating stuff like this?
      Is it just a hardpoint adaptor or is it more complex?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Modern weapons are called "smart weapons" not "guided weapons" because they're a lot more complex now

        Paveway II was four decades ago and it's basically a bog-standard bomb-steers-itself-to-laser-designated-spot. That's a "guided weapon", and yes it can (and has) been dropped from anything with an adaptor. It's just pure ballistics after all.

        A "smart weapon" like Storm Shadow makes Paveway look stupid; it reads its own map, has a photo of the target, can communicate with other platforms or other weapons, has multiple modes which can be switched around in-flight, can count how far down to go before exploding, has multiple redundancies, etc etc. Not all smart weapons have all these capabilities, but the point is that they are much more integrated into launch platform electronics than simply dropping a bomb and letting its seeker steer.

        It's the difference between a telephone and a smartphone.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Storm shadow can’t communicate with anything once launched. It lacks a data link.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Why would you want a stealthy cruise missile to be emitting radio signals?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It’s encrypted and you’d want it in case it’s main target is destroyed and it can then attack secondary targets.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It's encrypted
                Lmao Jesus Christ /k/ aren't sending their best

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Encrypted doesn't mean a damn thing, it's still an emission.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It's encrypted
                Lmao Jesus Christ /k/ aren't sending their best

                It’s encrypted and you’d want it in case it’s main target is destroyed and it can then attack secondary targets.

                There are LPI data links that emit directional focused packets along a small azimuth with the hope it won't get picked up by sensors in front of you. Beyond that very general statement I don't really know how they work but yeah it's different than encryption has more to do with beam steering and the wave guide

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It's encrypted
                Lmao Jesus Christ /k/ aren't sending their best

                >What is LPIR
                it's almost like you morons are intentionally stupid

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It’s not a problem when the f35 does it but is for the JASSM ok

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >thinks F-35 doesn't have various levels of emission control

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >thinks the JASSM doesn’t have various levels of emission control

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are you moronic? or coping?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are you? You’re saying short transmissions are a problem for JASSM but not f35. Explain yourself

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                They are a problem for both moron. If F-35 is operating behind enemy lines it will reduce it's emissions accordingly, many of it's data-links will be severed and it will lose capability in line with those reductions.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Notably it won't lose its ability to receive information, which is what that moron is implying.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >data receipt only needs one way transmission

                enjoy your packet loss

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >One way transmission
                Thought it was encrypted as well. Encryption can't work without two way data streams

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                We have a cryptologist here everyone!

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The closest thing he ever been to anything crypto was when he lost all his savings after investing in crypto.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Use a one time pad frickibg moron, it's not like this thing is going to fly for hours

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You don't even need a OTP, just have a symmetric key you use for that specific missile-station link and abandon it after you're done. What's the enemy going to do, magically break AES in this one specific instance?

                As for the other moron saying "packet loss", you can transmit data over very long distances with no handshake/resend/etc, it just means you need to drop the size of the message, use coding that's more error resistant, and sign most of or the entire message so the other party can verify not just that they received a message from you, but that the message was actually correct. If in doubt resend it a few times.

                Of course I wouldn't expect these people to know this since they're mentally disabled vatniks but frick.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't even need a OTP, just have a symmetric key you use for that specific missile-station link and abandon it after you're done. What's the enemy going to do, magically break AES in this one specific instance?
                Pretty much what I wanted to say, thank you

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah I don't get why people make it out to be impossible. I mean your computer/phone probably has dozens of TLS sessions with different websites using different keys right now, servers might be doing thousands, but a bloody warship can't handle 20?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Since 7th of April there have been 788 attacks on health facilities, hospitals and clinics medical centres.
                Well shit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The exchange of keys could be done before you even launch it back at the hangar

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                JASSM emits right before hitting the target to see if it needs to switch? It’s not a constant emission

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I fricking hate people here man. The concept of there being an undisclosed, encrypted and signed command to make the missile disregard EMCON and turn its data link back on is too much for these idiots.

                >data receipt only needs one way transmission

                enjoy your packet loss

                You are actually mentally disabled and I hope you have an adequate carer.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You are actually mentally disabled and I hope you have an adequate carer.

                If i'm mentally disabled how does it feel knowing less about data handshakes than me?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Don't care anon, you don't know anything.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                When you posted that data went both ways.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So did my dick when I fricked your mother. Learn literally anything past the basic functionality of TCP and people might listen to you.

                >One way transmission
                Thought it was encrypted as well. Encryption can't work without two way data streams

                Bro.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You getting upset shows that you've run out of arguments.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That works when you're having an argument with someone in person and you being an emotional little frick will put people on your side. It doesn't work when you're objectively wrong.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He's getting unironically mad

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                it's so embarrassing when people just make shit up.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I know. Imagine believing the JASSMs data link is a flaw. People on here are so fricking moronic

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >imagine thinking emissions matter on a stealth weapon

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                NAYRT but surely every little bit counts?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It’s a trade off. The ability to receive targeting information mid flight outweighs the ultra small risk of transmitting said information

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Name a time when a cruise missile has been re-targeted in flight.

                The mere existence of a two way datalink opens up potential for hacking.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don’t have access to most likely classified information about real world missile strikes. The ability to do it is nice regardless of wether or not it’s been used in combat

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's literally a stated feature of TACTOM. You'd know this if you weren't a newbie.

                >Key elements of the TACTOM design are an improved navigation and guidance computer, improved anti-jam Global Positioning System capability, improved responsiveness and flexibility through two-way satellite communications for in-flight re-targeting, a loiter capability, and the ability to send a single-frame Battle Damage Indication Image of over-flown areas prior to impact.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >TACTOM
                FYI Tomahawk Block V is probably the world's most advanced cruise missile in service

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That's probably LRASM or NSM/JSM

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It is indeed, and TACTOM isn't a stealthy missile.

                I don't think hacking will be an issue tbh you just make sure each missile only responds to a specific code that's specific to the missile in question.
                Effectively non hackable unless they get ahold of its design from spying.
                SS is rumoured to be being upgraded with one eventually but it just doesn't provide that large of an advantage, since large multi missile strikes are often preplanned days ahead, they are unlikely to just get swapped mid flight outside of moving targets, which are not most targets.
                The only advantage is a target priority list, but as I said previously with current foreign AA assets, I don't think a second round of missiles because one got shot down is an issue.
                Thus this utility is limited in value in the real world.

                See pic.

                what the frick do you think thermals see

                A separate parts of the EM spectrum. One (IR) uses reflected light, the other uses emitted thermal radiation.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This guy is such an idiot it actually hurts to read his posts, and that's pretty fricking rare for me to experience.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                No arguments detected

                That’s a drone that’s being constantly controlled from outside signals. It’s not comparable to a mostly autonomous cruise missile

                You think it's harder for an enemy to spoof a one off command than constant control?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I think it’s harder to jam a cruise missile that you can’t see than to point jammers at and overwhelm a slow moving high altitude drone to force it down yes.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                We talking about jamming and not hacking now? You don't need to know where a GPS recipient is in order to produce a louder signal than a satellite to jam a whole region.

                M code is good but it's only a signal boost, it's by no means foolproof. That's why INS and terminal sensors exist though

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Whatever you want to call it. An enemy targeted by JASSMs would not realistically be able to use electronic warfare measures to keep the JASSM from hitting its target.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Russia has already degraded the capability of HIMARS through GPS jamming though.

                >https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/05/politics/russia-jamming-himars-rockets-ukraine/index.html

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I doubt it's that effective.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                GMLRS is bog standard guided rocket artillery that can be tracked on radar the moment it is launched. How is that comparable to the JASSM

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You don't need to know a systems location to jam GPS.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You absolutely do unless your plan is to shootdown the gps constealltion

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Cruise missiles like JASSM and Storm Shadow are intended to be used for counterforce strikes in a nuclear war where they'd operate without GPS. It's a nice-to-have rather than a critical part of the system

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                HIMARS has a direction GPS antenna which would be theoretically more vulnerable to GPS jamming. They also fly at a much higher altitude and aren't provided the benefits of terrain masking.

                GPS guided cruise missiles fly barely above ground level, have directional GPS antennae, and are much less susceptible to any of the ground based jammers the Russians have.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The system receiving the signal almost doesn't matter.

                GPS is a known frequency and a known signal pattern and intensity. All you have to do is repeat that pattern, on that frequency with the same of greater intensity and you can interfere with all the systems in the region. I'm no GPS basher, it was great at the time but the world has moved on, it has it's limitations.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                the PPS pattern is not known, otherwise it defeats the purpose of CDMA completely

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Doesn't really matter anyway, western cruise missiles aren't reliant on only GPS coordinates. Either US or European cruise missiles shouldn't have an issue with targeting in a GPS denied area.
                Iirc HIMARs also has basic b***h INS so we're just talkin reduced CEP, not missing, really.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >TACTOM isn't a stealthy missile
                Doesn't matter, you asked if it was a capability and received proof it was.

                >spoof a one off command
                You don't have the slightest knowledge of anything to do with cryptography, if you did you'd know that using the word "spoofing" in that context without a lot of explanation is literally a buzzword. Please explain how you're going to spoof a military grade VHF/HF/satellite datalink. No vague references to "I'm sure it can be done", show any knowledge of how it might actually be done.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That’s a drone that’s being constantly controlled from outside signals. It’s not comparable to a mostly autonomous cruise missile

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Anon that's a constantly controlled drone that sends back data feeds and allows for direct control for months at a time. An autonomous missile that gets a few commands sent to it through a secure single use hashkey is not the same risk.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >A separate parts of the EM spectrum. One (IR) uses reflected light, the other uses emitted thermal radiation
                you are TRYING to say active IR you fricking moron god
                it's the same region of the EM spectrum but a different application because you're actually illuminating the target
                just saying "IR" and "thermal radiation" is useless because they mean the same fricking thing

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                IR seekers and Thermal seekers are not the same thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yes they are how many times do you need this explained to you
                what you THINK "IR" means actually describes active IR. IR is simply the spectrum being measured. IR is infrared is thermal radiation. they are the same thing.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >active IR

                Your use of this term makes me think the only knowledge you have is from rifle sights that have IR lamps on them lol

                It's okay if you don't understand the differences between IR and thermal energy, the infrared spectrum is a big place.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                is it common for you to hunt down graphs just to prove yourself wrong?
                >Your use of this term makes me think the only knowledge blah blah
                illuminating a target with IR is materially different than passive observation. trying to confuse the concept of IR imaging and seeking more broadly with active IR is moronic.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >is it common for you to hunt down graphs just to prove yourself wrong?

                You looked at that graph and concluded that thermal radiation covers the whole IR spectrum... very telling.

                Can a thermal camera see near-infrared and reflected light?

                Can a NIR camera tell a warm rock from a cold rock in a pitch black, sealed room?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >You looked at that graph and concluded that thermal radiation covers the whole IR spectrum... very telling
                try to use that graph to prove that IR imaging is not thermal imaging you fricking moron
                and yes a thermal camera can see "reflected light" in the IR spectrum. you are so obsessed with being pedantic yet you still don't even know what you're talking about at a fundamental level

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >try to use that graph to prove that IR imaging is not thermal imaging you fricking moron

                I already did, i just assumed you had the mental capacity to figure it out yourself. He'res a more baby tier graph for you.

                IR cameras and Thermal cameras are different things and have different purposes. There is literally no amount of your own stupidity that will change that.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                This man is poor and lacks NODs lmao, point and laugh.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                why do we have so many individual infrared spectrum rays compared to every other type of rays?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                There is significantly more differences in how the waves react with metter within those wavelengths. Ultraviolet basically gets stopped, radio just goes through nearly everything.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Because Humans can only see a very small section of the light spectrum, there's lots of creatures on earth that can see far more - various birds and insects can see ultraviolet and the marks on certain plants that must look beautiful to them.

                We only have three types of colour cone in our eyes (red, green blue), a mantis shrimp has 16. So they see the world in a very different way to us. There will be life on other planets, that due to the colour of their star, type of atmosphere and life on their planet will likely see an entirely different spectrum to us, it's possible we may not even share the same parts of the spectrum.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >We only have three types of colour cone in our eyes (red, green blue)
                Funfact: one in a hundred woman has another cone for yellow and since we make yellow with mixing red and green pixels on electric screens, the yellow on those looks off for them.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think hacking will be an issue tbh you just make sure each missile only responds to a specific code that's specific to the missile in question.
                Effectively non hackable unless they get ahold of its design from spying.
                SS is rumoured to be being upgraded with one eventually but it just doesn't provide that large of an advantage, since large multi missile strikes are often preplanned days ahead, they are unlikely to just get swapped mid flight outside of moving targets, which are not most targets.
                The only advantage is a target priority list, but as I said previously with current foreign AA assets, I don't think a second round of missiles because one got shot down is an issue.
                Thus this utility is limited in value in the real world.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It’s not a problem the JASSM already has anti jam hardware and starting in 2026 will be upgraded to m-code to increase jamming resistance even further

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I mean it doesn't really matter, one shot missiles are virtually unhackable.
                >M code
                Lmao nice buzzword

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                M-code isn’t a buzzword it’s a technology that receives a large amount of funding to achieve a specific purpose

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nice dubs. It's literally a buzzword for hack resistant coding, what the frick you smoking.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It’s a technology. You calling it a buzzword is irrelevant

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's still a buzzword for "were making it hackproof this time I promise".
                Virtually nothing is hack proof over time.
                It'll work fine on short term transmissions
                like on a JASSM but on other lingering tech it's still a vulnerability like any other code.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, but it knows where it is, because it knows where it isn't.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            For now. From what I understand they've been fingering a data link since 2012, it's not exactly the highest tech.
            >Many enhancements have been proposed for this weapon system, although Europe’s financial troubles make it uncertain whether any of these will ever enter service. Storm Shadow strike planners would like to have a data link from the missile to the launch aircraft, or even back to the Air Operations Center. With a two-way data link, it would become possible to re-target missiles in flight, a concern when there is a risk of civilians wandering into the field of view, or when the planned target may have already been neutralized by other weapons.
            I also regret to inform you but all this war did is prove that you don't really need it, since Russian AA is dogshit, so you can hit targets whenever you want later even if you miss initially.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              bongs want the datalink primarily for reducing collateral damage, but the weapon is quite lethal and accurate even without it

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              You don’t need it but it’s great to have

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Well it's certainly an added feature.
                I don't think the issue about emissions is an issue though, since it would only be transmitting when it's already in the process of destroying or is near the target.
                Mid flight target redesignation emissions is sillier, there's not a lot of that going on yet and wars aren't that fast since to use one of these you need top tier information so you don't waste them. At least not yet.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks makes sense

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >a fricking nother one
    Dude, this is legit mental illness. Get help anon, spend some time off the internet

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      the second post is what motivated me to get off my arse
      discussion threads shouldn't be held hostage like that

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit OP is pathetic.
      Just like the storm shitshow.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine what they could hit if they had JASSM-ERs with twice the range.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit OP is pathetic.
      Just like the storm shitshow.

      Cope, seethe, dilate.

      Besides the local shill, can anyone tell me how they could theoretically up the range on this thing. I'm assuming they can just add a droppable fuel tank or something.

      250km is supposedly the range of the Export variant.

      Ah that makes more sense. I imagine the bongs will give them the lower range ones with a few long range ones sprinkled in like they did with the brimstone stocks, and then as stocks lower they will get the longer range ones instead.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        > can anyone tell me how they could theoretically up the range on this thing.
        Redesign it with a smaller more efficient engine and add internal fuel. That’s how the JASSM-er improved range while keeping the same dimensions as JASSM

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          There has been a significant advances in small jet turbine efficiency lately since the original design, so this isn't actually too silly an idea.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >just add a droppable fuel tank or something.
        You are actually as stupid as you seem.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >What do you mean you can't Black person-rig a fuel tank to a missile that's basically a plane
          They would literally do that if they needed something with increased range. It's difficult, but not that difficult.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Wouldn’t that absolutely obliterate the stealthy features? Why not do what JASSM did and redesign the engine and add fuel internally

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Not really, and you'd be low altitude for the initial half, meaning you don't actually need it since the idea is to just allow launch outside of long range AA.
              You can also design them stealthy anyway but that would be something they'd have to figure out.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are genuinely moronic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      and imagine what they could do if we gave them nukes. its still a massive capability upgrade.

      storm shadow is still more than capable of penetrating russian defences and fricking up whatever its fired at and is particularly suited to hitting hardened targets.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Payload of this thing compared to GMLRS?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Like 5 times as large. They use those old broach warheads

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >old broach warheads
        BROACH is an ingenious design, truly a step ahead of other approaches to bunker busting
        you know it's good when even the yanks bought it
        (the secret sauce is in HOW it penetrates)
        (not shown in diagram)

        Pretty good then, but kind of doubt still that it could do anything to the Crimean bridge, other than maybe halt traffic for half a day

        >halt traffic for half a day
        see

        https://i.imgur.com/K5G34oc.png

        Of course
        Basically it is a Tomahawk-class weapon, but stealthier and with a high-penetration warhead

        it's designed to destroy hardened aircraft shelters and bunkers, it can pierce several feet of concrete

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yea but that only puts a hole in the bridge

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The US used it but moved on to different designs. BROACH is great but it’s not the be all end all warhead to defeat hardened structures

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The US used it but moved on to different designs

            The US still uses JSOW, Raytheon own the licence, not Lockheed.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              That’s nice if they wanted it they could have produced it under liscense. Lockheed tested the broach on ATACMS as well

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                ATACMS isn't a JSOW competitor. ATACMS went with a smaller warhead than BROACH, presumably to add range.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Okay but you’re claiming Lockheed doesn’t have access to the BROACH warhead so what I posted was speaking to the fact that they do have access. They just chose to go another direction it’s not personal

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay but you’re claiming Lockheed doesn’t have access to the BROACH warhead

                For an air launched weapon that competes with Raytheons license they wont.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                > For an air launched weapon that competes with Raytheons license they wont.
                May I see this air launched weapon clause that you are referencing

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Of course
            It's really a matter of expense
            Theoretically right now a three stage DU bunker buster the size of the GBU-28 would blow the socks off any other existing conventional weapon
            >if the prototype isn't sitting in Area 51 already

            Seriously, what is the bongs' problem?
            They have no problem with giving away their best weapons and make no fuss about it.
            They support the Ukies far more than any other western European country while being the furthest away from the war.
            I feel as if they have a concealed deep-seated hatred against Russia for some reason.

            IMHO, this is HM Government saying: "A little Novichok goes a long way."
            And so does a little deterrence.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >HM Government
              What does HM mean?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                His Majesties Government.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      450kg BROACH, Tandem Shaped/HE charge vs 91kg HE Unitary of the GMLRS, it's a massive improvement.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Pretty good then, but kind of doubt still that it could do anything to the Crimean bridge, other than maybe halt traffic for half a day

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Well then the US will have to donate AGM-86C Block 1's then with 1362kg warheads. I mean they're LITERALLY being stored for decommission, why the frick aren't they being handed over? UK has broken the taboo now.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Well, I'm no demolition expert or structural engineer, but if it can hit one of the suspension arches horizontally it seems it could really compromise the structure. Broach was built to penetrate shallow buried concrete bunkers, I can't find exact penetration figures though.
          I really don't know though, I don't have a clue about that sort of thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I was thinking these sort of warheads would be better used on the support beams rather than the bridge itself.
            Punching a hole into the beam and then detonating barely inside it should be effective, and should knock out two bridge sections too, if not 4.
            Hit the right one and it might even take out an arch.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You want to hit the top center part of the arch if that is what you're aiming for.
            The bottom half is basically additional, all the weight support is in the compressed wech.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Wech
              Arch

              https://i.imgur.com/ZwbxFI0.jpg

              That would up the stakes too much, Ukraine could strike at key targets inside Russian territory which Russia would take as sign to escalate the war. The Shadow Storm is less capable than a fully fledged cruise missile like the latest block of Tomahawk, so isn't as aggravating to the Russians.

              It's not that, it's just they'll need them for the coming Chinese chimpout.
              US is probably happy for the UK to be using the stockpile that realistically was designated for counter Russian defence.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >penetration figures
            at least 15 feet of rock, actually more like beyond twenty feet

            Yea but that only puts a hole in the bridge

            it's a fair-sized hole, see the picture above

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Yea but wouldn’t hitting the supports be more effective. Let the weight of the structure do the work for you

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You want to hit the top center part of the arch if that is what you're aiming for.
            The bottom half is basically additional, all the weight support is in the compressed wech.

            Can the apex of the arch be reliably hit? Be a shame to have one miss trying to go for a shot like that.
            I know western weapons are typically very accurate, but still. You'd need to know the height of the arch for one, though that's not unfeasible at all. GPS jamming might be an issue as well.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It's terminal guidance is a thermal camera not GPS, if an 80's Javelin can do it on smaller targets I can't see why a larger missile can't.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >thermal camera
                Infrared. Pointing thermal cameras at ambient temperature structures isn't an ideal use.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                what the frick do you think thermals see

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Can the apex of the arch be reliably hit
              One of the first uses of Storm Shadow was against a deep ISIS tunnel network; the pilots dropped a Storm Shadow into the hole left by another Storm Shadow seconds before

              Sound familiar?
              This, but British.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you probably want to hit the area with the highest bending moment, the bridge deck probably in this case 1/4 from the arch contact point with deck.

            t. Civil Engineer not specialized in structural engineering

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Would you need to hit both arches or just 1 to get it unstable?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                1 should be enough with a good hit

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                1 should be good, torsion can take care of the rest

                t. that civil anon

                Mech E, agreed. I imagine both deck members are fracture critical: most arch bridges don't have member redundancy. The main issue is getting a hit which actually severs all the redundancy in a given member. Also keep in mind that shear loads are highest at low moment areas, so a hit there might cause remaining members to shear (shear modulus being the lower of the moduli and all).

                Honestly arch bridges are kind of a nightmare when it comes to resisting damage.

                Thanks for taking me on a trip back through statics. yeah, arch bridges are really cool otherwise

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Mech E, agreed. I imagine both deck members are fracture critical: most arch bridges don't have member redundancy. The main issue is getting a hit which actually severs all the redundancy in a given member. Also keep in mind that shear loads are highest at low moment areas, so a hit there might cause remaining members to shear (shear modulus being the lower of the moduli and all).

              Honestly arch bridges are kind of a nightmare when it comes to resisting damage.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >what is the M150 PAM
          It can completely destroy pillars by punching a hole with the precursor so the main charge detonates inside and exploits concrete's low tensile strength. BROACH is the same but larger.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >will be used only within Ukrainian sovereign territory and not inside Russia

    With this wording, using it in Kerch to target a naval base near Sochi should be legit. Because you're using a missile at the moment you're launching it, not at the moment it lands.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >After launch, the weapon descends to terrain hugging altitude to avoid detection
    vatnik rockets have the same capabilities. I witnessed one of such missiles flying in parallel with our SUV when we were heading back from the front lines. It was in my field of view for only 2 seconds due to high speed, but I was really surprised at how low it was going. No more than 30-50m above the ground

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, Tomahawk made this capability famous in 1991 on CNN, and the Russians' latest missiles have copied it (Kalibr)

      slava ukraini and Godspeed

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is it powerful enough to destroy the crimean bridge?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Of course
      Basically it is a Tomahawk-class weapon, but stealthier and with a high-penetration warhead

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So is the bridge already in range?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, although it's probably the most AA saturated place in the theatre

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why aren't the Americans sending any cruise missiles?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why would the US have to send cruise missiles?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The US equivalent is pretty shit

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Tomahawks aren’t exactly shit. They aren’t stealthy but they do fine against Russian AD

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Is this bait for a certain moron anon. If so respect.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That would up the stakes too much, Ukraine could strike at key targets inside Russian territory which Russia would take as sign to escalate the war. The Shadow Storm is less capable than a fully fledged cruise missile like the latest block of Tomahawk, so isn't as aggravating to the Russians.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Shadow Storm is less capable than a fully fledged cruise missile
        Implying Yuzhmash won't reverse-engineer the frick out of it and make a slightly less accurate missile with three times the range

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Yuzhmash
          What's that?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yuzhmash
            One of Ukrainian missile companies, the company that made "Satan" ICBM and Zenit-series space rockets, engines for Vega, first stage for Antares and has several military missile projects-Blyskavka(supersonic), Grim, Killchen SAM system, etc. More than competent.

            The UK is just completing a mid life extension of Storm Shadow so the missiles provided are likely to be a generation behind the ones the UK uses. It's replacement (FC/ASW) is also well underway and looks to be two separate missiles, one fast and shorter ranged, one slow, stealthy and long ranged one.

            Doesn't matter. Ukraine likely won't be able to make it this terrain-hugging anyways, for one. Because Ukrainian made sensors are late 80s tier at best. But it won't be an issue for precision since Ukrainian laser inertial guidance systems are extremely good

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >One of Ukrainian missile companies
              Isn't satan russian missile?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Remember back when Ukraine was part of the USSR, there was a war, it was very Cold...

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Look at any """russian""' (well, Soviet actually) weapon and 80% of the time it's Ukrainian. Igla and Satan are fully Ukrainian; S300, all aviation including strategic(Tu-95, 22 and 160), all submarines, most of missiles had Ukrainian engines and/or electronic systems. I'm not even mentioning tanks and whatnot

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Why wouldn't ip be able to hug the terrain? you literally just program a course and it uses it's downward facing radar altimeter and forward looking IR sensor to fly low and fast.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                NAYRT but the problem is sending what's AHEAD of your missile and avoiding it in time while flying at high subsonic speeds (~750kph)
                Think about it
                It means having a very long ranged terrain contour sensor pointed ahead, not just your basic b***h laser rangefinder

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >It means having a very long ranged terrain contour sensor pointed ahead, not just your basic b***h laser rangefinder

                You realise you can get a map of the whole worlds elevations, measured by satellite to fit on a USB stick?

                There is also a forward looking IE sensor. The terrain hugging is a well known feature of storm shadow, not sure why you think Ukraine couldn't use it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                And without GPS your drift over hundreds of km means your elevation map becomes useless.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Good thing it has triple redundancy with an INS and also terrain matching.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >map on a USB
                yes, you can get that; leaving aside the question of how accurate that map is (contour intervals) and other objects (buildings, trees), the question is how your missile detect an upcoming obstacle fast enough to avoid it
                >The terrain hugging is a well known feature of storm shadow
                The question was how can Ukraine make a cheap domestic knockoff, and the answer is they need a decently powerful, modern, fast-processing radar to do that

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >es, you can get that; leaving aside the question of how accurate that map is (contour intervals) and other objects (buildings, trees), the question is how your missile detect an upcoming obstacle fast enough to avoid it
                Accuracy depends on what you're using. If you have a DSM lidar map it is often on a 1-2m grid and maps elevations of things like buildings and trees, I'm not sure whether the Ukrainian government did lidar surveys before the war but I'd imagine the topo data is available from civilian sources. Lower lying areas tend to have lidar data because it's used for flood risk mapping. Beyond that it's just a matter of taking the nav data from the GPS or onboard inertial system and comparing it to the surface model to make sure it doesn't crash

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >lidar surveys
                >slav shitholes
                anon...

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, yeah, we already heard that, you don't like slavs. When you stops hitting on streets we'll maybe think about listening to you

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Believe it or not the west sells these services for money

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yeah, I'm saying Ukraine may not have had the money to pay for such services

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Believe it or not it's not exactly rocket science nowadays. Google does it in literal shitholes in Africa

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Eh, I'm not an engineer. Maybe it is possible. I just more or less know what Ukrainian MIC is capable of and based my statement on the level of Ukrainian optical guidance systems

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Ukrainian optical guidance systems

                It's not a Ukranian missile?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It isn't, but the reverse-engineered one will. Check the earlier messages

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Can they not procure such systems from France or something.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Even ignoring political ramifications of dealing with frogs it's too late to tinker with new systems for the missile to be completed and be relevant in this war and in the longer time scale it's better do develop shit yourself.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          The UK is just completing a mid life extension of Storm Shadow so the missiles provided are likely to be a generation behind the ones the UK uses. It's replacement (FC/ASW) is also well underway and looks to be two separate missiles, one fast and shorter ranged, one slow, stealthy and long ranged one.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    From what I can tell, bongs are capable of making missiles only if those missiles are aimed at ground targets. They make pretty good examples such as the brimstone.

    Why the frick does the entire british R&D infrastructure apparently collapse at the slightest HINT of surface to air functionality?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Why the frick does the entire british R&D infrastructure apparently collapse at the slightest HINT of surface to air functionality?
      Starstreak works just fine, CAMM works SAMPSON and aster work

      Yea but that only puts a hole in the bridge

      it puts a hole in the bridge and then the 450kg follow on charge flies into that hole and detonates 450kg of HE detonating inside a support is going to do noticeable damage

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Because most of their MANPADs and Light SAM Systems are derived from the fricking Blowpipe.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    how much of a game changer is storm shadow?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Very long range

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Ammo and supply dumps will be moved even further back, Crimean and Lugandan bridges are at risk of destruction, there will effectively be nowhere within the original ukraine borders that will be safe from Ukrainian attack.
      The missile is also useful for anti shipping, so supply routes that use boats will be at risk.

      Seriously, what is the bongs' problem?
      They have no problem with giving away their best weapons and make no fuss about it.
      They support the Ukies far more than any other western European country while being the furthest away from the war.
      I feel as if they have a concealed deep-seated hatred against Russia for some reason.

      Years of espionage and murders on our soil with lack of regard for civilians, flying nuclear bombers near us and violating airspace. Buying off of politicians, paying off our radicals on both sides (this especially annoys most bongs, they like stability), scandals involving Russian money laundering, and the fact that were taught the Russians also invaded Poland.
      Note how much the UK supported Polish and the Baltic States independence and you realise they've always been concerned about Russian

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Seriously, what is the bongs' problem?
    They have no problem with giving away their best weapons and make no fuss about it.
    They support the Ukies far more than any other western European country while being the furthest away from the war.
    I feel as if they have a concealed deep-seated hatred against Russia for some reason.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It's not like they committed several chemical weapon attacks on British soil or threatened nuclear annihilation of the entire isles. Poor little innocent Russia.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I feel as if they have a concealed deep-seated hatred against Russia for some reason.
      kinda yeah.

      frickers brought fricking polonium into the country and traipsed it round london to murder a dude, then a while later brought fricking nerve agents to do the same, failed to kill the target but did kill a bystander, they refuse to extradite the guilty. if they didnt have nukes we would have been actively bombing the frickers since day one of the invasion

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Russians conducted two high lvl assassinations in UK with a lot of collateral damage. Google Skripial and Litvinienko

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >High level
        Lmao no they just smeared radioactive material all over a box of noodles one time and the other smeared it on a door handle. They fricked it up twice the first time.
        Literally Arab tier assassination.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >a lot of collateral damage
        There are only 2 people, that weren't suppose to die. Which isn't much for collateral damage.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >Which isn't much for collateral damage.
          its a lot when you arent meant to be killing anyone at all in that country and are operating completely illegally

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Can you imagine the butthurt of Russia if any western nation had even tried that shit in Russia and fricked up so badly? We would have seen NOOOK threats of unknown high scale.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think it would be the same level of threats as it was from the UK. Except these assassinations made russian gov a primary target for the UK and many other countries.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >I think it would be the same level of threats as it was from the UK.
              HAHAHAHAHAHAA! You are funny.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Collateral damage doesn't mean only dead people
          Do you want to take a guess how much decontamination cost in case of a persistent nerve agent and radioactive materials? Which they splattered all around the place

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How many, 3? And in any case won't this piss of the Russians for years to come? They already hate the UK, if these do any serious damage, isn't retaliation a real risk?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >And in any case won't this piss of the Russians for years to come?

      are you fricking serious lmao

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >How many
      As many as the Government will pay for; the RAF have at least a thousand missiles in storage
      If Treasury votes them a billion pounds they'd happily blow the lot and watch Putin cry
      >and restock with Storm Shadow Mark 2

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >How many, 3?
      unknown but probably enough to be actually useful if the ukrainians are careful with targeting, the real goal is to break down another taboo regarding arming the ukrainians in the same way giving them tanks did.

      >And in any case won't this piss of the Russians for years to come?
      and this is a problem why? the british are already sanctioning the russians and the only way relations are normalising anytime soon is if putin goes and they have real elections for his replacement.

      >They already hate the UK, if these do any serious damage, isn't retaliation a real risk?
      how? they cant strike the UK with conventional forces, they could with nukes but that ends poorly for the russians as at this point the UK probably has as many functioning nukes as russia, and economic retaliation isnt exactly a credible threat from a already sanctioned country, and they already act indirectly against the UK by arming groups against UK interest.

      they dont have any real retaliation method that they arent already doing.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Considering the climate around the war in the UK, bringing the UK more directly into the war by striking it with conventionals is a sure fire way to piss off the entire UK, which realistically only passively thinks about the war on a day to day.
        This isn't even considering article 5, even without it the UK would likely go all the frick in in support this war. You'd see basically half the country wanting blood.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >bringing the UK more directly into the war by striking it with conventionals
          Does russia have an ability to stike the UK with conventional weapons? I doubt it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Yes. it would probably be missiles launched from bombers and jets though, which probably won't last too long above NATO airspace after the attack.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >above NATO airspace
              Well, not above NATO airspace alone.
              I also doubt russia will remain aircraft capable country at this point.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Coming from basically any direction within 1000km of the UK puts them at high risk of being caught by NATO aircraft on exfil.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe with their "navy"

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          well yeah, the russian ability to hit the UK with conventional weapons is questionable at best, and its not an effective strategy because the UK will absolutely see that as a gloves off sign, and given what we have seen so far from the russiansthe UK could radically alter the course of the ukranian war in days if it started actively commiting assets on anything resembling a war footing,

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >How many, 3?
      A lot more I hope.
      >And in any case won't this piss of the Russians for years to come?
      I hope this does.
      >They already hate the UK, if these do any serious damage, isn't retaliation a real risk?
      What risk? The UK isn't a party in this conflict.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > And in any case won't this piss of the Russians for years to come?
      it might make russians take gloves off for the 32143rd time, yeah

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >isn't retaliation a real risk
      I wish a zigger would

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >won't this piss of the Russians for years to come?
      Yes, and that’s a good thing.

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Check the post to poster ratio
    Mental illness

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      That’s called discussion. 100 anons posting one liners is an infinitely worse thread makeup

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >post to poster ratio
      Doesn't mean anything when Warriortard is known to spoof with half a dozen IPs a thread

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How much of a limitation is this being air-launched? Russia still has considerable air defense right?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      It far outranges any Russian air defenses

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Great, thanks. good luck to Ukrainian air force!

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Not much, it can be launched from deep in Ukraine

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Any attempts to compare the JASSM and stormshadow are Russian cope. The claims JASSM is much better, while true, is completely irrelevant to the topic and designed to cause infighting

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah this entire thread has strong "Valery realizes he has a stealthy 500 kg warhead cruise missile (not glide bomb) coming for an ammo depot near him" energy.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Technically Ukraine had the capability due to their own long range missiles and drone, hitting places like Crimea, we saw how much cope and evacuations happened from those few missiles alone kek.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but I feel like that was performative cope, even during the strikes on the airbases in Crimea they were fairly composed about it. This is deranged screeching and I love it.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >while true
      Lmao
      Go suck off Black folk for rent warriortard

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This is exactly what the vatniks want you to do. In no world can the storm shadow be seen as better than JASSM these are just facts. The point is that Ukraine is getting storm shadow which far outrange anything the Ukrainians have

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You're wrong bro get over it

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What am I wrong about. Provide details

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Fact: warriortard is NEET, poor, incel, moronic, and will eventually die alone in a gutter and nobody will even care enough to rejoice

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Oh my. I thought you would reply with some stats or something

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                He's not me

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Those are stats

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                The only ones to notice will be some random anons on /k/ who thinks the board lately feels a little less shit.

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Is the warhead on this thing powerful enough to take out the Kerch bridge?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      You could bury the bridge under several meters of earth and concrete and storm shadow would still destroy it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Oh god yes. We're really going to see 8th of October redux, aren't we?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The sheer amount of seething and screaming from vatBlack folk will sustain me for a lifetime if British weapons destroy that bridge.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I feel like they specifically waited until may 9 was over just so that the Ukrainians wouldn't be tempted to launch a cheeky strike on Moscow with it

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The UK clearly doesn't give a frick if this is fired into Russia (which is where the juiciest targets will be). Do they need the French to sign off on the transfer so added this stipulation?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No. Both the UK and the French aren't a huge fan of weapon treaties that stop each other using their weapons they bought. They both cooperate because they are reliant in either other. Selling them to other nations might be an issue but generally as long as it's UK supervises the frogs won't care, and the UK has large stocks anyway.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So why the stipulation? The UK has made it clear it sees no problem with Ukraine hitting military targets inside Russia, so what's different about this missile?

        I have to assume there are logistics and coordination centres just inside the Russian border that are in range of this missile now. Russia for it's part removed any distinction with the annexations.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The whole point of Storm Shadows is strikes deep behind enemy lines. So, expect some russian soil to burn.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Hear me out, what's stopping Ukrs from destroying what Black Sea Fleet is in Crimea now and, via their one landing ship and several repurposed civvie boats, just landing past the other side of the Dnieper?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Submarines

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Russia moved them further east a week or two ago out of fear of losing more ships.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Don't care. Ukraine is losing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's losing these weapons as fast as it can get them. Strangely, it always loses them in the direction of Russia, at roughly mach 1

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Man don't you just hate it when all your NLAWs get stolen because you're a corrupt piece of shit and NATO finds out they're being hidden in the carcasses of dead Russian tanks all along the FLOT?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The year is 3023, the racist aliens have drawn graffiti on my front door but I cant see what it says because of these shitty human eyes.

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    %3D

    If you want to see what else was said this is the announcement of the Storm Shadow, obviously its taken the spot light but there are other good bits in the Q+As.
    >All Challenger 2s are in Ukraine
    >Storm Shadow would have been given straight away if there was an offensive on the horizon but that wasn't the case, now is different (counteroffensive soon boyo)
    >StormShadow will be air launched
    >More long range missiles are being procured for Ukraine by the UK

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >StormShadow will be air launched
      F-16?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Su-22 *~~

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Su-24 allegedly

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He said
        >part of the reason we haven't seen the Storm Shadow sooner was it takes a long time to intergrate a 5th gen missile onto a 2nd or 3rd gen Soviet or Russian aircraft
        So I'm guessing it's not an F16.

        >More long range missiles are being procured
        bongbros can't stop winning

        Here are the details
        >Long range strike - closed on 4 May 2023, 23:00 BST
        >EOIs were requested in the following sub-capability areas:
        >Missiles or Rockets with a range 100-300km; land, sea or air launch. Payload 20-490kg.
        >Desirable requirements:
        >Low Probability of Intercept (LPI)
        Includes Mission Planning Capability
        Assured navigation (with hardened Global Navigation Satellite System capability) in the face of advanced countermeasures and EM spectrum denial
        Air defence penetration methods to increase probability of successful strike
        Technical Readiness Level of at least 8
        Suppliers who submitted an EOI will be contacted from 5 June.
        https://www.gov.uk/guidance/international-fund-for-ukraine-ifu

        Contracts are open for anyone so if you fancy building a cruise missile in your nans shed now is the time.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Based Ben

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/jeoUE2T.jpg

            He said
            >part of the reason we haven't seen the Storm Shadow sooner was it takes a long time to intergrate a 5th gen missile onto a 2nd or 3rd gen Soviet or Russian aircraft
            So I'm guessing it's not an F16.
            [...]
            Here are the details
            >Long range strike - closed on 4 May 2023, 23:00 BST
            >EOIs were requested in the following sub-capability areas:
            >Missiles or Rockets with a range 100-300km; land, sea or air launch. Payload 20-490kg.
            >Desirable requirements:
            >Low Probability of Intercept (LPI)
            Includes Mission Planning Capability
            Assured navigation (with hardened Global Navigation Satellite System capability) in the face of advanced countermeasures and EM spectrum denial
            Air defence penetration methods to increase probability of successful strike
            Technical Readiness Level of at least 8
            Suppliers who submitted an EOI will be contacted from 5 June.
            https://www.gov.uk/guidance/international-fund-for-ukraine-ifu

            Contracts are open for anyone so if you fancy building a cruise missile in your nans shed now is the time.

            cringe

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >noooooooo you can't have fun while donating weapons to waste Russia nooooo
              Pipe down freak

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                You are a tourist. Go away redditor

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, reply again though I know your autism can't resist it...tourist.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

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

          Based Ben

          He also said
          >If any of our partners want to send F16s we will deliver them if you don't want too
          Kek

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >2nd or 3rd gen Soviet or Russian aircraft
          Interesting Stipulation, not 4th gen like the MiG-29 or Su-27? Guess that confirms Su-24 is the launch platform, pretty sure that's 3rd gen.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >1:20:45
            Skip to that on the link here

            https://i.imgur.com/90BdV0m.jpg

            %3D

            If you want to see what else was said this is the announcement of the Storm Shadow, obviously its taken the spot light but there are other good bits in the Q+As.
            >All Challenger 2s are in Ukraine
            >Storm Shadow would have been given straight away if there was an offensive on the horizon but that wasn't the case, now is different (counteroffensive soon boyo)
            >StormShadow will be air launched
            >More long range missiles are being procured for Ukraine by the UK

            That's were he discusses the integration of the missile.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >More long range missiles are being procured
      bongbros can't stop winning

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Flight altitude 30-40 metres. Terrain hugging.
    That is gonna be hard to shoot down

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Expect Russian state media to chimp about GI Joe shortly

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Russians are in for a world of hurt.

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Overkill, to be honest. Providing ATACMS would be so much cheaper and more efficient, but people are scared.
    Overall Brits are cool and ballsy.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The Bongs have broken every taboo first
      >First to give ships to Ukraine (Frigate is being built still)
      >First to give helicopters
      >First to give western MBT
      >First to give long range missiles
      Now the USA can take the baton and go 'Well they did it first lol'. If UK gives jets first... well, that'd be ace.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Add to that:
        >First to supply weapons post invasion
        >First to announce post invasion training program - which is still the biggest.

        Both of those things were happening beforehand, but Britain's near immediate escalation of existing support really set the tone.

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ukraine have been given a preliminary amount subject to proven effectiveness. 500 ready to go.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >500 ready to go.
      source?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        t. knower

  32. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Challenger 2 > Abrams
    Brimstone > Hellfire
    Shadow storm > Tomahawk
    Star streak > stinger
    L85A3 > M16
    L115A3 > M24

    Simple as.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Be gone, trying to stir infighting here is just sad, humiliating and reeks of desperation...rather like strapping logs to your transport trucks or putting metal bed frames on tank turrets.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Challenger 2 > Abrams
      probably goes to tha abrams at least until challenger gets the gun upgrade, its pretty close though, the gun difference would only matter vs western mbts and they are equal in protection, Abrams is faster in a straight line on roads but chally is marginally better cross country.

      >Brimstone > Hellfire
      no shit Brimstone originated as a upgrade program for Hellfire and ended up well beyond its original remit and spanning a line of follow on weapons, Hellfire is still a fricking good missile though and has some interesting variants

      >Shadow storm > Tomahawk
      totally different weapons for totally different purposes
      >Star streak > stinger
      in trained hands sure, but stinger is easier to give to militia and much cheaper.
      >L85A3 > M16
      L85a3 is heavier, but very reliable - A1 had the reliability issues- and very accurate, M16 is lighter

      >L115A3 > M24
      yeah sure, ones a dedicated from the ground up sniping weapon the other is a militarised hunting rifle

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      when are you going to buy our CV90s

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Now I hope, jk we never will that would be a much too sensible option for the MoD.

        Seriously though it pisses me off and alot of others we don't have the CV90, especially now BAe has something to do with it.

  33. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    This war has proven that ground launch systems for cruise missiles and other missiles are absolutely crucial for future conflicts

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Well of course, that's part of why they were heavily restricted by INF in the first place. Forcing decent range ones to be carried by aircraft or ships ties the maintenance/operation cost of cruise missiles to that of their launch platforms which has the effect of making them far more scarce, as what's the point of stocking thousands of cheap missiles if you don't have the money to fly the aircraft that deliver them?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      only because NATO air forces are *still* not in play

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      Air-to-ground is more important since an aircraft gives a missile initial velocity, which would take 80% of missile fuel to gein the same amount of velocity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Utterly moronic opinion. Stealth aircraft will have issue lobbing these

  34. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this shit terrifies me. Modern war sounds so hellish.
    >quick dig a trench
    >artillery artillery artillery
    >oh frick get in the trench!
    >bzzzzzzz
    >oh frick it's a drone swarm! out of the trench, out of the trench!
    >whoooosh
    >oh frick here comes the kamakaz- BOOM

  35. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >not even supersonic

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Tomahawk's are subsonic. JASSM's are subsonic. Speed doesn't matter. It's first strike, low visibility, low altitude, small target profile, etc. In the case of the JASSM (I don't know enough about the Storm Shadow) it utilizes RAM material including a stealthy shape. They're functionally ground/sea skimming F-117s with more advanced avionics and targeting.

  36. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    BTW does anyone know if Link 16 is the universal data-link standard in NATO or if there other systems in use?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      There are several Link standards, but most NATO countries use Link 16 on aircraft. Unfortunately not all Euros are willing to spend the money to have datalink capability with their allies. As always, the US has to fill the gap by having older datalinks on AEW&C aircraft to brudge the capability gap. Like, if you have F-35s in theater you still have to talk back to everyone else even though nobody has MADL, so integration is a huge important pain in the ass.

  37. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Ah yiss.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Kek
        As long as they pay a license fee for it, or when they manufacture them are willing to sell us them back at a substantive discount, I'd be all for it.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Your missile shall be a splendid addition to our Blyskavka project
          t.Pivdenne Design Bureau

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Where ERA?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Inside, of course. It's better protected this way

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

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

      Love these guys.

  38. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There's only a limited amount of these so they'll have to be used on high value stuff I assume. Airbases? Huge ammo depots outside of himars range?

  39. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Well this explains all the zigger meltdowns today

  40. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The missing question here is HOW MANY DOES THE UK HAVE?

    Sending 12 of them is irrelevant.
    Sending 212 is very useful.
    Sending 1200 is war changing.

    What happened to the brimstone missiles? They worked great but than they just disappeared. Out of stock?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Sending 12 of them is irrelevant.
      Not really, since these thing are designed to take out high value targets. Which makes every single one count.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Google helps you to avoid looking like a moron with its basic search function. moron.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >What happened to the brimstone missiles? They worked great but than they just disappeared. Out of stock?
      Nope, russians stopped the offensive and don't pile up tanks anymore.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Sending 12 of them is irrelevant.

      Kerch Bridge getting demolished is irrelevant?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Kerch Bridge getting demolished is irrelevant?
        Why would you want this fairly insignificant bridge to be destroyed if there are a plenty of higher valuable targets?

  41. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Russians are surprisingly clam today.

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