If we beleived the Russian shoot down numbers Ukraine would have run out of these week one... not that they could launch them since their Airforce has been destroyed 8 times over.
There was an anon here who claimed to have known him while he was in the military. It's probably bullshit, but he said that the guy is just an idiot and terminal contrarian about everything. Anon claimed he was the type that would always smugly tell you you were wrong about any subject, regardless of what it was.
I don't think they'd consider the guys in WW2 that carpet bombed factories filled non-combatants to be "heroes" moreso just doing their job. Plus "shipbuilding" in russia doesn't exist on a timescale that is even remotely relevant in this conflict. Like blowing up a german factory that will finish the Maus 3 years too late.
>one ship
16, of which: destroyed: 11, damaged: 5 >Guided Missile Cruiser (1, of which sunk: 1) >Landing Ships (5, of which destroyed: 3, damaged: 2) >Patrol Boats (7, of which destroyed: 5, damaged: 2)
There was a functioning shipyard in Kerch? Sorry, that’s got to be a lie. Unless it was started up recently after the war started or it made motorboats.
It's a small mostly civvie shipyard, but big enough to do repairs and final fitting out on small missile boats like the Askold in their single drydock. And now that drydock is fucked.
It's a small mostly civvie shipyard, but big enough to do repairs and final fitting out on small missile boats like the Askold in their single drydock. And now that drydock is fucked.
Pasted an article in the last thread. A bit of other good info in that thread worth checking out.
Why can't you guys be happy that the one time the brits and french worked together it actually worked out. The British part doesn't work without the French delivery system and a missile with no warhead is useless. Unless it has katanas.
Oh noooo 1 crash in 34 years!
Can Boeing even compete?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
1 out of 20 crashing is a 5% crash rate. Do you seriously think regular airliners have anything remotely as bad as that?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
>5% crash rate
That's not how crash rate is calculated you fucking moron
Typical commercial aviation accident rate is 1 per 100,000 flight hours
The Concorde's record is 1 per 240,000
Now fuck off
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
It crashed because the piece of shit known as the DC-10 decided to crash another plane instead of itself
1 out of 20 crashing is a 5% crash rate. Do you seriously think regular airliners have anything remotely as bad as that?
>DC-10 leaves chunks of itself on the runway >Concord hits these chunks and crashes >the Concord is bad
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
Failure mode had happened many times prior to this fatal crash. They had been lucky before.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
So FOD has hit the underside of the wing hard enough to cause fuel leaks before?
Source?
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
FOD shreds the MLG tires. Rubber and other shit is thrown towards underside of fuselage.
>high TO speed, cuz delta n' shit. >lots of load on MLG >FOD shreds tires >Tire debris hits underside of fuselage, either puncturing it or sending a shock wave through the tanks/other shit.
Specific case most like AF4590 is 1979 AF54 outta Dulles: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1979/f-fc790614/pdf/f-fc790614.pdf
that's the same mode. But shredded tires is a well known thing with Concorde. Happened much more frequently than other airliner types.
Kevlar reinforcement didn't happen until after fatal crash tho.
fun fact the concorde wasn't economicaly viable anymore at this point.
But taking out of service wasn't an option because it was a prestige project. So the concorde fleet kept making operational losses.
And when the crash came from a shit plane being shit. It was the golden opportunity to retire the fleet even when the planes weren't defective or in anyway to blame for the crash.
Which in turn gave the image that
concode = crash = taken out of service = bad
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The Concorde was never economically viable, they made the same mistake as the shuttle and drastically underestimated operational costs in the development stage and were stuck with it in the operational stage.
The reason it wasn't killed at birth was the prestige factor.
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
It was a neat development at the time and the engines were particularly impressive, the luxury of traveling from NY to Paris or London within a few hours was certainly worth it to some people, but when jets like the A330 and the 777 became a thing there was no point anymore
It was cool though, cool enough that the soviets tried to copy it (and failed miserably)
4 weeks ago
Anonymous
The reason the shuttle ended up as expensive as it did was because they ended up having to please too many different parties with different requirements to get enough funding in the first place. Originally it would have been more similar to what spacex is building today, both of the failure modes that caused either of the crashes would also have been avoided with this, as it would not have had SRB’s and would not have the TPS sitting next to brittle spray on foam.
>Le British could be here, he thought. I've never been in this arrondissement before. There could be British anywhere. The cool wind felt good against his bare chest. I HATE BRITISH he thought. La Marseillaise reverberated his entire Renault, making it pulsate even as the €9 Chateau Jacques de France rouge circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of anglos after dark. With une voiture, you can go anywhere you want, he said to himself out loud.
The frogget that haunts this board is unironically worse than the average vatnik
But Apache was a 200km range stand-off munitions dispenser.
It's the Brits that made it a 500km+ bunker-penetrating, terminally infrared-seeking cruise missile
I don't think anyone would care about them hitting the Russian end of the bridge, the whole "don't hit Russia" thing is more about stopping them from attempting a decapitation strike or terror bombings.
Russia is incapable of effective terror bombing they couldn't do it last winter and they sure as hell can't do it now that Ukraine has way more air defences in place.
He's saying that Ukraine is being stopped from terror bombing Russia.
We all know that Russia is using every single weapon available to them to max capacity, except for their nukes.
Ukraine has made it clear that a repeat of last winter's anti-infastructure drone compaign will be met with a similar campaign waged against Russia/Moscow.
I'm talking about NATO not wanting Ukraine terror bombing Russia.
The biggest concern about giving them long range missiles is Russia would hit Kiev and a Ukie commander (or even enlisted) might decide to hit Moscow.
This reminds me of seeing Russel Brand fearmongering about "Russia's FINAL line to not cross, or else WW3" and at this point I'm starting to think that WW3 wouldn't even be that fucking bad.
Bring it on, Russia.
honest question, what is the strategic gain of hitting a ship not even operational yet. I get the sub, but a shitty ship? Couldn't they use these missiles on things that actually affect them?
The only gain here is to maybe embarass ruskies and shit on their AD, but they can always claim to buyers that "not everyone has scalps laying around, and if they are flying at you, you have bigger worries"
Removing Russia from the Black Sea relieves pressure on the Ukrainian economy. Plus perhaps Ukraine could counter-blockade Russian trade through the Black Sea.
>a shitty ship
The Karakurt class has VLS cells that can sling Kalibr cruise missiles at Kyiv. Removing Kalibr launchers slowly cuts down the number of missiles they can throw at Ukraine.
Also, cutting down the Black Sea Fleet means Ukraine can slowly gain naval superiority. This may eventually allow them to trade more, or route aircraft over coastal routes for sneak attacks on land targets, or free up troops guarding against amphibious assault - and that would have direct impact on the land war.
Even if Russia doesn't accept the operational loss and quickly replaces the asset, killing off Russian assets, especially such new ones, damages the Russian economy. Money spent buying a new corvette is money not spent buying more cruise missiles or tanks.
Finally, don't underestimate the morale effect of this kind of thing. As Napoleon said, "the moral(e) is to the physical as three is to one". When supposedly superior numbers of troops break on the battlefield against theoretically inferior opposition, it's because of morale, and because of minor incidents like these.
>let ship become fully operational >it is now a moving target >has at least some detection/evasion/defense against the strike >it can now be used to try and choke your trade or to launch missiles strikes from the sea forcing you to change your interception umbrella > could provide support to russian ground troops if the ukies ever try to land on the Crim
vs.
>hit it while it's still fitting out, isn't able to evade or defend against the strike >hasn't had the change to do anything to you jet >is even more embarassing
The russians figured that said port was to risky for their active surface fleet and moved them to a port on the other side of the black sea. But they never thought about the ship they where still fitting out.
And now they have been reminded that evey asset they have on the Crim can be hit and will be hit if the ukies want it to be
and so the russians can cope about 15 launched 3 got there like the last time and the time before then and the next time and the time after that.
On a larger strategic vieuw it helps to transform the black sea into a western/NATo lake.
Every asset the russian navy loses there is an asset that will take years to replace if they replace it at all.
naval strategy is build strategy and now the russians need to build more and have been reminded that they can't use most of their black sea facilities to build.
half this war started over russias lease of their naval base in crimea. its the one thing that russia cannot afford to loose, its that base.
so when ukraine blasts the shit out of that base, and anything near it, that makes taking crimea that much easier.
>Russian and Ukraine have an agreement that Russia won't sink Ukie civilian shipping and Ukies won't ship weapons >Russians say the agreement is void >Russians say they are going to start unrestricted naval warfare >Ukies start destroying Russian ships
It's not complex, Russian ships pose a huge threat to the Ukie economy and ships in dock / dry dock make static targets for GPS / INS missiles.
As a bonus destroying a ship inside a dry dock also makes it extremely hard to remove it and use that dry dock to repair other ships in future.
Each of these ships sunk or destroyed means the power balance in the Med shifts more favorably towards NATO. The Kilo and Moskva were the big prizes but these corvettes are still big deals, with Russian doctrine with the Black Sea fleet (and the Russian navy as a whole to an extent) is to cram as many big boy ASMs onto their ships as possible for that distributed firepower, giving corvette sized ships a pretty nasty punch.
On a more practical note though, the ship was almost ready for commissioning and would've meant another 8 VLS cells in the Black Sea. Striking it before it enters service makes strategic sense and reminds the Russians that their fleet isn't safe in Crimea.
>the asskold is in the ass
the hero that was shot down?*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~*~~))
SCALP/Storm Shadow have fucking humiliated Russia it is so funny. Imagine losing a Kilo sub to one of those.
It's strange, ziggers have an AWACS over Crimea and Kerch bridge has best AA they can muster. Is S-400 really that bad?
they shot down 13 of 15 storm shadows. is storm shadow really that bad?
Ukraine probably doesn't have enough ready planes to fire 15 simultaneously.
you need 8 planes to fire 16 scalps at once.
If we beleived the Russian shoot down numbers Ukraine would have run out of these week one... not that they could launch them since their Airforce has been destroyed 8 times over.
>Russians don't understand what a MALD is
>unknown technology blyat
>Is S-400 really that bad?
Yes, especially when manned by mobiks.
A entire ship knocked out is worth 3 missiles, nice bait though zigger.
He's joking you sperg
>they literally type this shit in every thread
wow epic bait retard ape
3 - 5 x ')' is legit, more than that is ironic
honhonhon
I see that our superiority is causing some russians to get a little bit irritated non?
Nice to know that russnagger garbage is worthless lmao
Tempête d’Ombres.
I think it would be "l'ombre d'une tempête".
l'ombre de la tempête
Sounds better indeed.
hombre with trumpet?
SIRS ?????
RUSSIA HACKEURZ DID THE NEEDFUL
Aren't they terrcom + IR?
>suivre
>lire des x des indians
ça va mon copain?
Well then, we will stop seeing things blown up then if that is true.
see! we successfully haxed the missiles *~~)) perfectly controlled them to be intercepted *~~)) take THAT *~~*~~
It'll buff out. Wonder if Copelord commented on this. I think he ignored the Kilo sub being hit.
He said the singular missile missed and hit the pier next to the ship, possibly resulting in minor damage due to splinters.
The minor damage
it returned to dock under its own power, just a little too quickly
>I think he ignored the Kilo sub being hit.
Nope. Like he would ever pass on an opportunity to be completely wrong.
If Russia doesn't need a black sea fleet, why does it keep building one? Why waste all these resources on an irrelevant fleet? Are Russians stupid?
>Are Russians stupid?
I think you already know the answer.
They're nearly 3 years into a 3 day op. What do you think.
Fleet in being doctrine does exist so technically there is a case for a navy that can never be used
What's the difference between a "fleet in being" and a fleet blockaded in port?
...merchant shipping can go through? Are you serious?
So if a navy can never be used, can it protect its merchant shipping?
Yes.
How?
Figure it out.
So you don't know.
>the navy was SUPPOSED to get killed by missiles
I love him so much, bros
hes walking a fine line between being amusing and annoying
The thin Z line.
>Russia dosen't NEED it's navy!
I've missed his cope so fucking much it's unreal,
Does he hate NATO so much because his military career was absolutely nothing of note, and he never managed to advance beyond O3?
There was an anon here who claimed to have known him while he was in the military. It's probably bullshit, but he said that the guy is just an idiot and terminal contrarian about everything. Anon claimed he was the type that would always smugly tell you you were wrong about any subject, regardless of what it was.
Very well done
It's like watching thunderbirds
>hack the GPS system
Storm Shadow isn't datalinked. You can't hack it.
You can spoof GPS but the missile still has an INS system
That's woman-tier posting.
HACK THE PLANET!
of course it's a poojeeti shill tweeting that
I don't think they'd consider the guys in WW2 that carpet bombed factories filled non-combatants to be "heroes" moreso just doing their job. Plus "shipbuilding" in russia doesn't exist on a timescale that is even remotely relevant in this conflict. Like blowing up a german factory that will finish the Maus 3 years too late.
The target was an operational missile Corvette Kukold which was being finished in the facility. They scored a direct hit on it
We have 11 more *~~) didn't need it anyway *~~) more being built *~~) will be better *~~) you hit dummy ship *~~)
Russia is no longer being able to intercept maritime traffic from Ukraine. Grain deal has ended but cargo ships are still coming
>one ship
16, of which: destroyed: 11, damaged: 5
>Guided Missile Cruiser (1, of which sunk: 1)
>Landing Ships (5, of which destroyed: 3, damaged: 2)
>Patrol Boats (7, of which destroyed: 5, damaged: 2)
And a Kilo class submarine.
it fucking baffles me Russia lost a fucking submarine against a country with zero navy in a primarily land war.
>if you want shitskins to die you’re a shitskin
I'M SORRY STORM SHADOW
>t. Can't even take fucking Avdiivka lmao
Inb4 gesture of goodwill
Why? Just fyi i’m not really rooting for israelites either, palishits and israelites deserve eachother.
Did i say anything different, retard? Did you even read my previous post you blind nagger?
>shouldn't you be apologizing for an israeli airstrike right now?
I'm asking for more. :^)
There was a functioning shipyard in Kerch? Sorry, that’s got to be a lie. Unless it was started up recently after the war started or it made motorboats.
It's a small mostly civvie shipyard, but big enough to do repairs and final fitting out on small missile boats like the Askold in their single drydock. And now that drydock is fucked.
Pasted an article in the last thread. A bit of other good info in that thread worth checking out.
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/60072205/#60080247
French weapons are so good when we think they are British!
MATRA SUPREMACY.
Lmao this.
No that one was the cancelled spanish variant, double dubs anon.
Why can't you guys be happy that the one time the brits and french worked together it actually worked out. The British part doesn't work without the French delivery system and a missile with no warhead is useless. Unless it has katanas.
>the one time the brits and french worked together it actually worked out.
Concorde and Channel tunnel, that makes 3
>Concorde
Oh noooo 1 crash in 34 years!
Can Boeing even compete?
1 out of 20 crashing is a 5% crash rate. Do you seriously think regular airliners have anything remotely as bad as that?
>5% crash rate
That's not how crash rate is calculated you fucking moron
Typical commercial aviation accident rate is 1 per 100,000 flight hours
The Concorde's record is 1 per 240,000
Now fuck off
It crashed because the piece of shit known as the DC-10 decided to crash another plane instead of itself
That was entirely the work of the undisputed king of air traffic, a DC-10
>DC-10 leaves chunks of itself on the runway
>Concord hits these chunks and crashes
>the Concord is bad
Failure mode had happened many times prior to this fatal crash. They had been lucky before.
So FOD has hit the underside of the wing hard enough to cause fuel leaks before?
Source?
FOD shreds the MLG tires. Rubber and other shit is thrown towards underside of fuselage.
>high TO speed, cuz delta n' shit.
>lots of load on MLG
>FOD shreds tires
>Tire debris hits underside of fuselage, either puncturing it or sending a shock wave through the tanks/other shit.
Specific case most like AF4590 is 1979 AF54 outta Dulles: http://www.bea.aero/docspa/1979/f-fc790614/pdf/f-fc790614.pdf
that's the same mode. But shredded tires is a well known thing with Concorde. Happened much more frequently than other airliner types.
Kevlar reinforcement didn't happen until after fatal crash tho.
>https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/146988
Interesting, thanks anon.
fun fact the concorde wasn't economicaly viable anymore at this point.
But taking out of service wasn't an option because it was a prestige project. So the concorde fleet kept making operational losses.
And when the crash came from a shit plane being shit. It was the golden opportunity to retire the fleet even when the planes weren't defective or in anyway to blame for the crash.
Which in turn gave the image that
concode = crash = taken out of service = bad
The Concorde was never economically viable, they made the same mistake as the shuttle and drastically underestimated operational costs in the development stage and were stuck with it in the operational stage.
The reason it wasn't killed at birth was the prestige factor.
It was a neat development at the time and the engines were particularly impressive, the luxury of traveling from NY to Paris or London within a few hours was certainly worth it to some people, but when jets like the A330 and the 777 became a thing there was no point anymore
It was cool though, cool enough that the soviets tried to copy it (and failed miserably)
The reason the shuttle ended up as expensive as it did was because they ended up having to please too many different parties with different requirements to get enough funding in the first place. Originally it would have been more similar to what spacex is building today, both of the failure modes that caused either of the crashes would also have been avoided with this, as it would not have had SRB’s and would not have the TPS sitting next to brittle spray on foam.
>Le British could be here, he thought. I've never been in this arrondissement before. There could be British anywhere. The cool wind felt good against his bare chest. I HATE BRITISH he thought. La Marseillaise reverberated his entire Renault, making it pulsate even as the €9 Chateau Jacques de France rouge circulated through his powerful thick veins and washed away his (merited) fear of anglos after dark. With une voiture, you can go anywhere you want, he said to himself out loud.
The frogget that haunts this board is unironically worse than the average vatnik
But Apache was a 200km range stand-off munitions dispenser.
It's the Brits that made it a 500km+ bunker-penetrating, terminally infrared-seeking cruise missile
>you will never sign a missile that humiliates a nation
One ship doesn't matter (except carriers and boomers) but when it keeps happening it becomes an issue.
Per UK/French restrictions, would Ukraine only be allowed to attack the Crimean side of the bridge but not the Russian?
I don't think anyone would care about them hitting the Russian end of the bridge, the whole "don't hit Russia" thing is more about stopping them from attempting a decapitation strike or terror bombings.
Russia is incapable of effective terror bombing they couldn't do it last winter and they sure as hell can't do it now that Ukraine has way more air defences in place.
He's saying that Ukraine is being stopped from terror bombing Russia.
We all know that Russia is using every single weapon available to them to max capacity, except for their nukes.
Ukraine has made it clear that a repeat of last winter's anti-infastructure drone compaign will be met with a similar campaign waged against Russia/Moscow.
Dog pack logic will not comprehend / understand this as a hint to not do it, they will "think" its a provocation to do it.
I'm talking about NATO not wanting Ukraine terror bombing Russia.
The biggest concern about giving them long range missiles is Russia would hit Kiev and a Ukie commander (or even enlisted) might decide to hit Moscow.
Apologize to stormshadow!
This reminds me of seeing Russel Brand fearmongering about "Russia's FINAL line to not cross, or else WW3" and at this point I'm starting to think that WW3 wouldn't even be that fucking bad.
Bring it on, Russia.
are you saying their ships are worth shit? Watch your mouth Harpreet
honest question, what is the strategic gain of hitting a ship not even operational yet. I get the sub, but a shitty ship? Couldn't they use these missiles on things that actually affect them?
The only gain here is to maybe embarass ruskies and shit on their AD, but they can always claim to buyers that "not everyone has scalps laying around, and if they are flying at you, you have bigger worries"
Removing Russia from the Black Sea relieves pressure on the Ukrainian economy. Plus perhaps Ukraine could counter-blockade Russian trade through the Black Sea.
>a shitty ship
The Karakurt class has VLS cells that can sling Kalibr cruise missiles at Kyiv. Removing Kalibr launchers slowly cuts down the number of missiles they can throw at Ukraine.
Also, cutting down the Black Sea Fleet means Ukraine can slowly gain naval superiority. This may eventually allow them to trade more, or route aircraft over coastal routes for sneak attacks on land targets, or free up troops guarding against amphibious assault - and that would have direct impact on the land war.
Even if Russia doesn't accept the operational loss and quickly replaces the asset, killing off Russian assets, especially such new ones, damages the Russian economy. Money spent buying a new corvette is money not spent buying more cruise missiles or tanks.
Finally, don't underestimate the morale effect of this kind of thing. As Napoleon said, "the moral(e) is to the physical as three is to one". When supposedly superior numbers of troops break on the battlefield against theoretically inferior opposition, it's because of morale, and because of minor incidents like these.
>let ship become fully operational
>it is now a moving target
>has at least some detection/evasion/defense against the strike
>it can now be used to try and choke your trade or to launch missiles strikes from the sea forcing you to change your interception umbrella
> could provide support to russian ground troops if the ukies ever try to land on the Crim
vs.
>hit it while it's still fitting out, isn't able to evade or defend against the strike
>hasn't had the change to do anything to you jet
>is even more embarassing
The russians figured that said port was to risky for their active surface fleet and moved them to a port on the other side of the black sea. But they never thought about the ship they where still fitting out.
And now they have been reminded that evey asset they have on the Crim can be hit and will be hit if the ukies want it to be
and so the russians can cope about 15 launched 3 got there like the last time and the time before then and the next time and the time after that.
On a larger strategic vieuw it helps to transform the black sea into a western/NATo lake.
Every asset the russian navy loses there is an asset that will take years to replace if they replace it at all.
naval strategy is build strategy and now the russians need to build more and have been reminded that they can't use most of their black sea facilities to build.
half this war started over russias lease of their naval base in crimea. its the one thing that russia cannot afford to loose, its that base.
so when ukraine blasts the shit out of that base, and anything near it, that makes taking crimea that much easier.
>Russian and Ukraine have an agreement that Russia won't sink Ukie civilian shipping and Ukies won't ship weapons
>Russians say the agreement is void
>Russians say they are going to start unrestricted naval warfare
>Ukies start destroying Russian ships
It's not complex, Russian ships pose a huge threat to the Ukie economy and ships in dock / dry dock make static targets for GPS / INS missiles.
As a bonus destroying a ship inside a dry dock also makes it extremely hard to remove it and use that dry dock to repair other ships in future.
Each of these ships sunk or destroyed means the power balance in the Med shifts more favorably towards NATO. The Kilo and Moskva were the big prizes but these corvettes are still big deals, with Russian doctrine with the Black Sea fleet (and the Russian navy as a whole to an extent) is to cram as many big boy ASMs onto their ships as possible for that distributed firepower, giving corvette sized ships a pretty nasty punch.
On a more practical note though, the ship was almost ready for commissioning and would've meant another 8 VLS cells in the Black Sea. Striking it before it enters service makes strategic sense and reminds the Russians that their fleet isn't safe in Crimea.
My question is:
Why is the Kerch bridge still standing? They can clearly knock it down.
Waiting for the right time for maximum humiliation.
>Oh what's that? Multiple layers of AD that won't let anything throu- annnnnnd it's gone.