well... Where the hell are they?

well...
Where the hell are they?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In crude 3dcg renderings playing on loop inside the monke palace.

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    meanwhile, the US has ARRW and LRHW entering service next year or the year after.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >garden gnome slut shit

      how to spot retarded garden gnome slut? watch him comparing oranges to potatoes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Not my fault russia is shit

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Finally a picture of zircon!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Another lockheed martin wunderwaffen
      How many children sacrificed to Marduk is this going to cost?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They're also behind the airforce's AGM-183 HGV

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      mach fucking 17

      What sort of fucking material are they using on it for it to not start disintegrating?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Zircon.
        Same stuff as your mum's cheap garden gnomelery she bought off TVSN. It's got a really cool property where it shrinks when it heats up instead of expanding like literally everything else.
        Thus the name of the missile (which if you understand the Russian sense of humour is ironic for a couple of reasons).

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        ARRW claims Mach 20

        > The AGM-183A has a claimed maximum speed of more than 15,000 miles per hour (24,000 km/h; Mach 20).

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          who needs odin at that point

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        the higher you go in the upper atmosphere the more the mach numbers are a suggestion

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

        meanwhile, the US has ARRW and LRHW entering service next year or the year after.

        >boost glide vehicle
        so what happened to all the scramjet proposals? the vatmorons are claiming theirs is a scramjet though if it looks like OP picture no way it's hypersonic

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          HACM is likely what you're thinking of

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >mach fucking 17
        They really got mad at those russian news about "muh supersonics" and wen't like "You want supersonics? You will get fucking supersonics to the point they will teleport directly into your house FUCK YOU"

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The last year or so of “MUH HYPERSONICS” must have pissed off just the wrong group of military autists

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It was at least in development by 2019. Trump mentioned our new missiles being "17 times as fast" a lot at rallies in 2020.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Honestly every president has had retard takes on new weapons.
              Obama thought DARPA was building Ironman.
              Bush II thought the Zumwalt could actually go invisible.
              Clinton thought the Commanche helicopter was invisible and silent.

              I think it's a good thing that the military isn't in charge of a democracy because those are my orders.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Clinton thought the Commanche helicopter was invisible and silent.
                he was right on the silent part. That damn thing was a breeze compared to any other recon and attach heli

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >compared to any other recon and attach heli
                That's not hard.
                It was quiet, not silent.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Mach 17
      How does Lockheed Martin do it?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Space shuttle TPS could handle Mach 25 reentry without melting in 1981 and a suborbital missile is way less mass constrained.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The Shuttle TPS was a foot thick of the lightest, most brittle foam known to man and intensely vulnerable to mishandling or any sort of FOD strike. Not suited for military applications. It was also designed to shed massive amounts of speed in the upper atmosphere, the exact opposite of what a hypersonic wants to do.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Is that the aerogel stuff?
            A question I've always pondered is what if it was sandwiched in steel, is it still just as absorbant but less fragile? Or is it basically just spaced armor?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Every time, the us will be using anti-gravity crafts while the rest of the planet can barely into space in a few decades.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Do you not know that the US currently has no way to get men into space?
          India can. America can't.
          India can shit on any street it wants from space motherfucker.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you actually buying the “we forgot how to make space ships” bullshit?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I don't know if they forgot, or they just keep forgetting to fund it, but they certainly don't have one.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                See

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

                >Do you not know that the US currently has no way to get men into space?
                American astronauts flew to the ISS from Florida on an American rocket...today. There was a period between the retirement of Shuttle and the development of Commercial Crew where America didn't have independent manned access to space, and that was shameful, but it's been restored.

                India, on the other hand, has literally never flown a man into space. They've got plans for a capsule and are allegedly going to fly it soon, but that hasn't happened yet. Where are you getting your information, revealed to you in a dream?

                One literally flew today. SpaceX Crew-5 to the ISS for NASA.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So Musk saved the day.
                Explains why I didn't hear about it.
                Anyway, cool, happy to be wrong on that one.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Explains why I didn't hear about it.
                ...No, you failing to follow literally any space news outlet for the last decade explains that. Commercial Crew isn't a new program, this is the sixth manned launch for SpaceX (Crew 1 through 5, plus a manned test flight). This program has been in development for over a decade and first flew humans in 2020.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >space news outlet
                If it had have been someone other than Darth Elon my dog would have told me because literally everyone would know.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you not know that the US currently has no way to get men into space?
            American astronauts flew to the ISS from Florida on an American rocket...today. There was a period between the retirement of Shuttle and the development of Commercial Crew where America didn't have independent manned access to space, and that was shameful, but it's been restored.

            India, on the other hand, has literally never flown a man into space. They've got plans for a capsule and are allegedly going to fly it soon, but that hasn't happened yet. Where are you getting your information, revealed to you in a dream?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I stand corrected.
              But yeah, that embarrassment really removes America's right to talk shit on the space program front.

              In fact I'll go a bit further and say my sin was complacency, that just because you're enemy can't do it right now doesn't mean they aren't working on a plan to do it sooner than you think.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >that embarrassment really removes America's right to talk shit on the space program front.
                Starship mogs everything and restores shit talking rights, though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Let me know when Elon shoots himself at mars. Then I'll be impressed.
                He doesn't have to hit, just the willingness to put his own arse on the line for the good ol' college try, then I will bow.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Technically the Tesla roadster he shot into orbit has an orbit that takes it past mars

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah but he wasn't in it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The US is way ahead on space matters.

                The only other players are Russia with their reliable but ancient Soyuz, and China with bootleg Soyuz that launches on hypergolic boosters for a ride to bootleg Mir.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Japan, India, the EU, even worst Korea are getting in on the space game.

                Actually while I've got space guys here, I have two questions.
                1. A submarine seems to me the best place to launch large rockets because the rocket plume is pointed at water, so you don't need any other systems other than the surfacing capsule. Is this reasonable?
                2. If I wanted to build a submarine to hold orbital launch vehicles (maybe 4-8) how big would the cylinders need to be to hold rockets for general purpose use. Effort posting here will be eagerly read.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Launching from the sea has some benefits but you're building a vessel that has to supply liquid oxygen and fuel (liquid hydrogen / methane / propane / kerosene / whatever) to the rocket, as well as being a boat. Making it a submarine makes it even more complex for little gain. Oil platforms are pretty decent launch sites, though.

                As for how big a submarine would need to be to launch general cargo rockets, pretty fucking big. Falcon 9 is 70 meters tall. If you go smaller (like, one-ton class launcher) you're still looking at a launch tube ~2m in diameter and ~30m high (Firefly Alpha)

                Of course, those numbers are based on existing land based rockets. You can probably get an existing SLBM like a Trident to work as a satellite launch vehicle with a kick stage and a light payload.

                In short though, no, commercial SSBN space launch isn't feasible.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Making it a submarine makes it even more complex for little gain
                I disagree with that. I've been trying to fit bigger missiles on a destroyer, a hydrogen rocket is a great big blowtorch and you're trying to point it directly at the deck of a ship full of people.
                That's where I got the idea from, I know the Russians have repurposed some of their old SLBMs as OLVs, and then it seemed to me that you can just point the rocket at the water and problem solved.

                >looking at a launch tube ~2m in diameter and ~30m high
                Yep, I had 2.5x30, so that tracks. It's not a reach to build a submarine that can contain a tube significantly bigger than that. 70m is a bit much though.

                The other advantage of a submarine is the ability to move it from the rocket factory to the equator relatively easily. You don't need a permanent facility, and you're less subject to the weather.

                Okay, so a manned rocket tho, can I build a really fat one that will get a manned capsule to space, that's no taller than let's say 45m? If yes, how fat?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your limiting factors for chonk are mostly structural and aerodynamic. A really narrow rocket like Falcon has a fineness ratio of almost 1:20, a fat stubby rocket like Sea Dragon has a fineness more like 1:6. Keep in mind any orbital rocket will be 2-3 stages.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So if chonky dragon was 45m high it would be 7.5 meters in diameter. Can I put three guys in the tip of that and shoot them into space or no?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://launchercalculator.com/?rocket=CST

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's a kick to the frontal lobe, but thanks, it looks useful.

                Just broad strokes, in your assessment, is it obviously impossible, or a borderline case?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >46.3m x 2.93m
                That would fit on a submarine in the 50,000 tonne weight class, which is about as big as possible, but definitely possible.
                The biggest concern after that is it uses petrol fuel instead of hydrogen.
                It's very easy to produce LH2/LOX on a submarine. Not so easy to produce gasoline.

                The only viable sea launch options are to use an oil drilling platform as your launch site.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No. You can launch things into space from submarines. The Russians have done it.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, with minimal payload, which is why I said VIABLE launch.

                If you want to waste your time and money launching some cubesats from a submarine, be my guest.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >which is why I said VIABLE launch.
                No it isn't. You said that because you don't know what you're talking about and think a submarine is the size of your uncle's fishing boat.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're a fucking retard, there are ZERO reasons to launch anything but an ICBM from a submarine. Even if it were technically possible, no government/military will ever do it because it's just cheaper, easier, and FAR more reasonable to just use a deep sea oil drilling platform

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Smallest 3-man rocket is Soyuz I believe.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >46.3m x 2.93m
                That would fit on a submarine in the 50,000 tonne weight class, which is about as big as possible, but definitely possible.
                The biggest concern after that is it uses petrol fuel instead of hydrogen.
                It's very easy to produce LH2/LOX on a submarine. Not so easy to produce gasoline.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you can cram a Titan II ICBM into a submarine you can launch a Gemini capsule.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                hydrolox rockets have to be bigger because hydrogen is less dense

                [...]
                The only viable sea launch options are to use an oil drilling platform as your launch site.

                >an oil drilling platform as your launch site
                which is not even a theoretical concept, it's been done

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://i.imgur.com/Xh0r9p4.jpg

                hydrolox rockets have to be bigger because hydrogen is less dense

                [...]
                >an oil drilling platform as your launch site
                which is not even a theoretical concept, it's been done

                There are projects for making methane and kerosene/avgas/gasoline from CO2, water, and electricity but they're better suited for oil platforms or the surface of Mars than for a submarine.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It would fit horizontally, not vertically.

                Submarines launch missiles vertically.

                The Trident II D5 is 2.11 m wide and 13.579 m tall and barely fits in one of the largest submarines ever built.

                Now tell me how the fuck you're going to fit a 46 meter tall rocket on a submarine you dumb moron gay.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, i'm not sure what those other retards are smoking, but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you're launching some 20m+ rocket from a submarine.

                Both the US, Russian, and Chinese SSBNs have settled on ~12-14m beam (widest point top to bottom in the case of SSBNs) so the maximum length for a rocket launched from a sub would similarly have to be ~12-14m at most, and while you could custom fab something for a larger diameter rocket, you can only go so large before it stops making sense (~3 meters maybe 3.5 meters on a sub).

                So you're incredibly limited in what size rocket you can have which is why SLBMs are so compact for their relative performance, but even so they're not really meant to carry a significant payload to orbit, they're meant to carry a couple of hundred kg payload sub-orbital.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, i'm not sure what those other retards are smoking, but there isn't a snowballs chance in hell you're launching some 20m+ rocket from a submarine.

                Both the US, Russian, and Chinese SSBNs have settled on ~12-14m beam (widest point top to bottom in the case of SSBNs) so the maximum length for a rocket launched from a sub would similarly have to be ~12-14m at most, and while you could custom fab something for a larger diameter rocket, you can only go so large before it stops making sense (~3 meters maybe 3.5 meters on a sub).

                So you're incredibly limited in what size rocket you can have which is why SLBMs are so compact for their relative performance, but even so they're not really meant to carry a significant payload to orbit, they're meant to carry a couple of hundred kg payload sub-orbital.

                Because you're retarded and don't know what you're talking about.

                Submarines ironically have a very shallow draught when on the surface, and the actual restriction on their size because they have to get in and out of port. The draught of a cylindrical submarine is half it's diameter not including it's sail, because that's where both the center of buoyancy and the center of mass is on a cylinder.

                So a 40 meter diameter submarine has a 20 meter draught, plenty of ports that can handle that, add a 7 or 8 meter sail, you've now got 48 meters from the top of the sail to the bottom of the sub. That's a sub with a displacement of 157,913 tonnes. Big, but well within realistic constraints, and big enough to handle a 46 meter rocket.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >sure its only 3-4x bigger than any other sub ever built but it's probably easy enough to do
                lmao

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>sure its only 3-4x bigger than any other sub ever built
                So?
                It wasn't so long ago that the biggest sub ever built had three dudes in it and was powered by pedals.
                There's no material constraint to building a sub that big, steel is fine.
                And there's no environmental constraint since ports that can handle a 20m draught are quite common.

                So basically you just don't know what you're talking about. You have no idea what submarines are the size they are or how big they might be. They're not actually that complicated.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                At the point of building custom megasubs to launch rockets you should just build a Sea Dragon. The only borderline part of the design is the one giant engine's combustion instability at scale, so a cluster of F-1B engines (modernized Saturn V first stage engines) would be enough to make it work.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                and if you're no longer a sub, you're not getting the benefits of a fully submersible vehicle, at which point we might as well go back to using an oil rig as a launch platform for it's relatively cheap price and the fact they already exist and have been used for sea launches.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                *50,265 tonnes.
                I need coffee.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The Typhoon is already 48,000 tons submerged.

                And it's "only" 175m long with a beam of 23m and a draught of 12m

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well I don't know what to tell you mate because a cylinder 40m in diameter and 400m long has a volume of 50,265 cubic meters, and a cubic meter of water weights one tonne.
                So take it up with math.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How about the weight of what's inside that cylinder + the materials that make up the cylinder?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                How about you google the Archimedes principle before you talk to me about ship design.

                https://i.imgur.com/Sv7IRpZ.jpg

                At the point of building custom megasubs to launch rockets you should just build a Sea Dragon. The only borderline part of the design is the one giant engine's combustion instability at scale, so a cluster of F-1B engines (modernized Saturn V first stage engines) would be enough to make it work.

                That's not quite the game, the aim of the game is I want to be able to launch military satellites in the middle of a war where both sides are shooting down each others satellites, and a submarine seems like a really good way to do that, at least better than a surface ship.
                So the line of questioning here is "well since we're launching shit into space from submarines anyway, what else can we launch?"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The columbia-class is already going to cost ~$9B per boat and they're "only" 171 meters long with a 13 meter beam.

                I have to imagine a 500 meter long with a 38 meter beam would cost ~5-10x as much.

                Do we REALLY need a $50-100B sub to launch satellites from the sea when we already have TONS of launch sites in the US that we can use?

                I mean, once the rocket is heading up the ruse is up anyway so I don't see how it matters if the Chinese have a 24-48 hour warning when they see it on a launch-pad in Florida or California vs only seeing it when it launches.

                Either way they can shoot it down with ASAT missiles within a few hours or days at most.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I have to imagine a 500 meter long with a 38 meter beam would cost ~5-10x as much.
                You can imagine it all you want, but ships are not sold by the tonne.
                Also unit price is a stupid way to account ships anyway, the real cost is the cost of the program as a whole.

                And if your submarine fleet is able to do commercial launches for a competitive fee, that reduces the overall program cost to the taxpayer.

                >Either way they can shoot it down with ASAT missiles within a few hours or days at most.
                Right, so the game is we have to launch our satellites faster than they can shoot them down (command of space), while shooting down their satellites faster than they can launch them (space denial) and thus we have adapted the basic theory of naval warfare to space (space control).

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >subs doing commercial launch for competitive cost
                >ever
                Boy, I will smack you over the Internet if you don't stop being such a dumbass. Even a military base on SOLID LAND is not competitive on price. That's why nobody launches from Vandenberg unless they have to. It's literally cheaper to ship a rocket to Alaska to launch from Kodiak Island.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have no idea why that is and I don't think you do either. But it's weird that you've assumed I'm American.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have worked for a company that did launches from both coasts. Vandenberg range fees were millions of dollars higher than KSC or Kodiak.

                >Right, so the game is we have to launch our satellites faster than they can shoot them down (command of space), while shooting down their satellites faster than they can launch them (space denial) and thus we have adapted the basic theory of naval warfare to space (space control).
                That's retarded and will never happen, satellites and launch systems simply cost far too much.

                Unless the sub-launched rockets are reusable they'll never compete with commercial launch options from SpaceX. And frankly, even if they WERE reusable I have to imagine the military R&D alone would set you back billions that you'd never recoup because it would still cost more than SpaceX launches with minimal benefit.

                The cost of an ASAT missile is what, $15-20M?
                Compared to a launch cost of $50-150M+ for a satellite on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that satellite costs (if it's anything fun and cutting edge it could cost billions). The math just doesn't work out, it's always going to be faster and cheaper to just shoot down sats than it is to launch them.

                Starship's target is $20M for 150 tons to LEO. Replenishment is affordable if and only if you have reusable launch vehicles.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Starship's target is $20M for 150 tons to LEO. Replenishment is affordable if and only if you have reusable launch vehicles.
                Yeah starship could change things, but you're not launching starship from a submarine.

                And at the end of the day, the satellites themselves are still generally more expensive than the missile used to shoot them down, so it still wouldn't really be worth it in a true peer war where both sides have working ASAT platforms.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Vandenberg range fees were millions of dollars higher than KSC or Kodiak
                Yeah okay well the middle of the pacific ocean is free.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Right, so the game is we have to launch our satellites faster than they can shoot them down (command of space), while shooting down their satellites faster than they can launch them (space denial) and thus we have adapted the basic theory of naval warfare to space (space control).
                That's retarded and will never happen, satellites and launch systems simply cost far too much.

                Unless the sub-launched rockets are reusable they'll never compete with commercial launch options from SpaceX. And frankly, even if they WERE reusable I have to imagine the military R&D alone would set you back billions that you'd never recoup because it would still cost more than SpaceX launches with minimal benefit.

                The cost of an ASAT missile is what, $15-20M?
                Compared to a launch cost of $50-150M+ for a satellite on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars that satellite costs (if it's anything fun and cutting edge it could cost billions). The math just doesn't work out, it's always going to be faster and cheaper to just shoot down sats than it is to launch them.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >, satellites and launch systems simply cost far too much.
                War is expensive. But a working satellite network is not a luxury for a navy.

                >Unless the sub-launched rockets are reusable they'll never compete with commercial launch options from SpaceX.
                Yeah but hang on second because there's a whole bunch of sunk costs that you're treating as opportunity costs.

                We need a fleet of big, powerful, SSBNs anyway. The bigger and more powerful the better. And they need OLVs they can launch. So that's all sunk cost. You don't need to account for that in the per launch cost.

                So it's really just the unit price of the (almost certainly disposable) rocket, and that price will come down the more we do it, so all you're really doing is getting commercial launches to help reduce the price of your military capability. It's all gravy.

                >The cost of an ASAT missile is what, $15-20M?
                I don't know off the top of my head, again unit price not as important as program cost, but the SM-3 is at the very limits of a what a Mk41 VLS compatible rocket can achieve. It's squeezing the biggest and most powerful rocket you can into a launch canister.

                So to do better than the SM-3 you need a bigger VLS, and we're back to the problem of pointing a giant blowtorch at the deck of a ship full of people.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So to do better than the SM-3 you need a bigger VLS
                we already have that with the VPM/APM for the Virginia-class and Zumwalt-class, not to mention it basically already exists on the Ohio-class and future Columbia-class.

                The SLBM launch tubes have like twice the space of a VLS cell, and the VPM/APM tubes should be at least 5 or 10 feet larger than the Mk 41 VLS cells.

                Mk 41 VLS cells come in 2 sizes, strike or tactical, which corresponds to about 25-foot length or 22-foot length respectively.
                SM-3 only fits the larger 25-foot length.
                The SLBM tubes are already ~44 feet in length. That is PLENTY of room for a larger ASAT missile if it were deemed necessary. And I think the VPM/APM tubes are supposed to be ~30-35 feet long, so still larger than the SM-3's VLS cell length.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Really? Are we really putting bigger rockets on submarines? Exactly as I'm suggesting?
                Holy shit it's almost as if a whole bunch of people have come to the same conclusion I have at the same, and you're only just catching up.
                So perhaps pay attention.

                Also the Zumwalt is a white elephant and you've clearly got no idea what's going on in the world of submarine procurement.

                And mk41 VLS cells can only handle rockets of up to ~550mm in diameter no matter how long they are, so thankyou for telling me basic shit that I obviously already knew.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                ...the Trident D5 is the same size as it has always been, and the same size we designed our subs for back in 1976.

                God damn I fucking hate retards like you who think they know what they're talking about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then stop being one.
                Just because Trident D5 served it's purpose in 1976 does not mean mean it's the optimal solution today. It took someone like me to come up with that, but he was working with different technology at a different time.
                You better not be the gay that needed to google the archimedes principle.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > VLS is too small we need something bigger
                > we have something bigger that we've had for 40+ years
                > SEE I TOLD YOU WE NEEDED SOMETHING BIGGER

                God damn you're a retard, we've had larger launch cells for decades and haven't felt the need to build larger missiles for them except for the new LRHW hypersonic missile that the VPM/APM equipped Virginia-class and Zumwalt-class are going to be able to fire.

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

                meanwhile, the US has ARRW and LRHW entering service next year or the year after.

                If we really felt we needed a larger SM-3, we'd build one for these launch cells.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                We need to figure out the best solution for launch OLVs from submarines
                >NONONO JUST USE THIS 1970s TECH BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A FUCKING CLUE HOW ANYTHING WORKS

                Who is "we" in that sentence gay? Are you involved in procurement somehow? Are you a naval or perhaps a rocket engineer? Or are you perhaps an economist who has to figure out the best price per capability possible in a world where an increasing aggressive China looks like it's going to challenge the United States for world leader status?

                Because you seem to assume that someone else is going to solve your problems for you, well guess what moron, I'm someone else.

                So just fuck off now and let the interesting people talk.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're delusional and no one is ever going to launch orbital vehicles from a fucking sub you deranged moron gay.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's already happened fuckwit. It just wasn't America that did it.

                https://www.wired.com/1998/07/russian-sub-launches-satellite/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, literal tiny cube sats that are now launched for dirt cheap as an afterthought on most commercial SpaceX launches.

                no one is ever going to do it for a real launch.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia has been lauching OLVs from submarines since the late 90s
                >NONONO THAT DOES COUNT
                You're a gay, fuck off.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >russia did a cube sat launch that was so absurdly expensive and retarded that they only ever did it once again a decade later with a single 180lbs micro-sat
                wow I'm shocked, and it was once again just to claim they did something America didn't do, not that it was ever actually a good reason to launch to orbit from a sub.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                moron you seem slow in many ways, but to be clear I'm no longer actually adressing what you're saying, I'm just calling you stupid because you are.
                Thanks for ruining the thread.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >ruining the thread
                moron you're the one talking about trying to launch satellites from a fucking imaginary 500 meter long 40 meter tall submarine.

                You're so far outside the realms of reality that there is simply no reason to even discuss it. The fact you think it's not only a viable idea, but a GOOD idea is just further proof of how fucking stupid you are.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                All submarines were imaginary before they were built.
                Just because nobody has done it, doesn't mean nobody can, and your dimensions are wrong which anyone knows even the most basic rules of submarine construction would tell you.

                But you don't know those rules, you don't actually know anything. You've got nothing to contribute and yet you insist being involved in the conversation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And you somehow think there are zero engineering challenges with a sub that large because it's not too large to enter/exit deep sea ports, wow, amazing insight you've got there.

                You're still proposing something that doesn't exist, for a task that has little to no strategic or economic merit.

                It's cheaper and easier to launch from land, or a non-submersible sea platform like a large ship or an oil rig. The strategic value of launching a satellite with little to no warning is of minimal consequence and you can't just pretend militaries want or need that capability because YOU like the idea.

                Your idea is just as absurd as suggesting we build a 500,000 ton aircraft carrier that can hold 400-500 planes because lol we TECHNICALLY know how and it's TECHNICALLY possible.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And you somehow think there are zero engineering challeng
                I stopped reading there, you've got no idea what the engineering challenges are, or what an engineering challenge actually is, and certainly no clue as to how they are solved, because you've got no fucking idea what you're talking about.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Says the man suggesting a 200,000+ ton submarine for launching satellites that no one needs or wants

                fucking have a nice day

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Navies don't need this because they just don't okay
                Okay gay, when are you going to stop talking tho?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                If they needed it, they'd be building one.

                As you've said, they've had the technical ability for literally decades.

                They even had the chance with the new SSBN class, but shocker, it's identical beam to the current 40+ year old Ohio-class

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they'd be building one.
                Once again back you knowing nothing about what's going on in the world of submarine procurement in addition to all the other things you don't know anything about, yet insist on sharing your dumb opinion.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                > you knowing nothing about what's going on in the world of submarine procurement
                They're building 12 Columbia-class SSBNs with a potentially to build an additional 2-4 in SSGN configurations if the Navy thinks it would be needed in ~20 years once the SSBNs are done being built.

                That's a fact.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They're building 12 Columbia-class SSBN
                No "they're" not. All submarine shipyards in the united states are currently building Virginia Block Vs as fast as they can.
                Meanwhile in the UK they're planning to replace the astutes with the much bigger and more capable dreadnoughts.
                While Australia, the third member of the AUKUS submarine alliance is considering it's options.

                What are it's options?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                wait but what about the Columbia class sub that's under construction atm?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not under construction. It's planned. But there's no shipyards to build it, because the USN can't get enough Virginia block Vs in the water to keep China in check.

                Thus it has reached out to it's closes allies to suppliment it's own submarine building capability with theirs.

                So what should Australia do, in the short and long term, with new nuclear submarine program?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                GDEB in Connecticut laid the keel.

                https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3052900/keel-laying-ceremony-held-for-first-columbia-class-ballistic-missile-submarine/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >to replace the astutes with the much bigger and more capable dreadnoughts
                moron... you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

                The Astute-class is an SSN, the Dreadnought-class is an SSBN. The Dreadnought-class replaces the Vanguard-class. The Astute-class is being replaced by the future as yet unnamed SSN(R) attack sub.

                Also, the Dreadnought-class is only ~4 meters longer than the Vanguard-class it's replacing. They're almost identically sized, and in-fact the they go down from 16 SLBM tubes in the Vanguard to only 12 SLBM tubes in the Dreadnought.

                wait but what about the Columbia class sub that's under construction atm?

                First one was laid-down in june, so the moron clearly has no clue since he claimed ALL shipyards in the US are working on Virginia-class boats.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Dreadnought-class replaces the Vanguard-class.
                Yeah I knew that felt wrong.
                But the astutes will be replaced with dreadnoughts as well, because that 4 meters buys a lot.

                GDEB in Connecticut laid the keel.

                https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/News-Stories/Article/3052900/keel-laying-ceremony-held-for-first-columbia-class-ballistic-missile-submarine/

                Oh they actually did manage to squeeze one in. That's good news.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But the astutes will be replaced with dreadnoughts as well, because that 4 meters buys a lot.
                not anytime soon, they're not even done building all of the Astute-class boats yet, still 2 left to build and 1 more that is still undergoing sea trials and shit before commissioning.

                The Astute replacement isn't expected until the 2040/50s.

                They're not replacing any Astutes with Dreadnaughts lmao.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not anytime soon, they're not even done building all of the Astute-class boats yet, still 2 left to build and 1 more that is still undergoing sea trials and shit before commissioning.
                Submarines don't last as long as surface ships.
                >The Astute replacement isn't expected until the 2040/50s.
                And it will happen sooner, you mark my words.

                The difference between an SSN and an SSBN in underwater performance isn't much. What a bigger submarine let's you do is have a much bigger sonar in the nose. So the theory behind and SSN is it's a "cheap" SSBN, only they're not actually much cheaper, because even though ships aren't sold by the tonne, navies have insisted for the last 30 or 40 years on building ships that are too small.

                So the dreadnought SSBN is a better SSN than the Astute. That's why fewer launch tubes, because it's not actually going to be used as an SSBN but rather an SSN.

                If you listen to how the Royal Navy is thinking about the "new reality" there's not going to be a lot of "cheaping out" any more.

                That's why I'm reasonably confident they'll eventually just go for a fleet of 30+ Dreadnoughts.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's why I'm reasonably confident they'll eventually just go for a fleet of 30+ Dreadnoughts.
                Meanwhile in reality, they're building 4 MAYBE another 2-4, and the first one (which started construction in 2016) wont enter service until the early 2030s.

                The idea of them building 30 is a joke, by the time they finished building the 10th or 12th it would be time to design a new SSBN anyway because it'll have been 25 years.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's going to change. That's all pre-AUKUS, pre-3%.
                That's why I'm looking at "we'll okay so what's the biggest submarine Australia could conceivably use" given that we're also looking at starting a space program.

                Australia has very deep ports and few choke points, so bigger is possible, and bigger is generally better, so how big is best.

                Thus, what's the biggest rocket someone might want to put on a submarine. What are the advantages, what are the disadvantages?

                It looks like the 2.5x30m VLS cells are the winner though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I imagine it's less a matter of
                >Navies insisting on ships that are too small
                And more
                >Navies insisting on ships that are the right size for what they can actually fill a crew for.
                Now that things are beocming a bit easier to crew due things becoming more automated we're likely to see larger or at least more capable ships. For instance the Constellation has a crew of 200, a solid 100 fewer than the Arleigh burkes, The Gerald Ford has a crew like half the size of the Nimitz etc.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >For instance the Constellation has a crew of 200, a solid 100 fewer than the Arleigh burkes
                Well the Constellation is a Frigate, not a Destroyer.

                Closer comparison is the OHP-Class frigates which are significantly smaller than the Constellation-class Frigates (140m long and 14m wide and 4200 tons vs 150m long and 20m wide and 7300 tons) the OHP-class has a complement of 176 and the Constellation-class has a complement of 200

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                insisting on ships that are the right size for what they can actually fill a crew for.
                It's not.
                The Burke class for example was originally meant to be a "cheap" Ticonderoga, and now it costs as much as a battleship but there is literally no more capacity in the hull for additional capability. The US needs a new major surface combatant that's much bigger than the Burke, people are looking at the San Antonio as the basis, I'm considering other ideas.

                The Zumwalt is a perfect example of WAY too small for what they wanted it to do.

                So it's not cheaper to build smaller, it's just less capable.

                derp i was thinking Constellation was DDG(X) instead of FFG(X) since it's still got that shitty 3d model

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, we don't know what the DDG(X) projected complement is supposed to be yet.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know, that the thinking is something based on the San Antonio hull to fit the new SPY 6 radar. That's not finalized, that's just where people are looking.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                insisting on ships that are the right size for what they can actually fill a crew for.
                It's not.
                The Burke class for example was originally meant to be a "cheap" Ticonderoga, and now it costs as much as a battleship but there is literally no more capacity in the hull for additional capability. The US needs a new major surface combatant that's much bigger than the Burke, people are looking at the San Antonio as the basis, I'm considering other ideas.

                The Zumwalt is a perfect example of WAY too small for what they wanted it to do.

                So it's not cheaper to build smaller, it's just less capable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The US needs a new major surface combatant that's much bigger than the Burke
                DDG(X) has the DPM which can increase the hull size by as much as you want (theoretically).

                Throw in 5 DPMs and suddenly you've got a 220m+ long boat that displaces over 20,000 tons.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                220m is actually well over 30,000 tonnes (again this is just the stupidity of the process).
                But that's probably where they'll go for their next major surface combatant, Japan is doing something similar.

                Personally I think that's still too small. I think bigger and nuclear is the best choice in the long term.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >For instance the Constellation has a crew of 200, a solid 100 fewer than the Arleigh burkes
                Well the Constellation is a Frigate, not a Destroyer.

                Closer comparison is the OHP-Class frigates which are significantly smaller than the Constellation-class Frigates (140m long and 14m wide and 4200 tons vs 150m long and 20m wide and 7300 tons) the OHP-class has a complement of 176 and the Constellation-class has a complement of 200

                The Constellation is a fail program already.
                What the USN actually needs is a large capable corvette, what they're going to wind up building because too much stupidity in the procurement process, is something that's going to try pack the capabilities of a Burke into a something the size of a Perry, even though the Burke isn't big enough either.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And the LCS boats were a GOOD idea?

                fuck corvettes and any "littoral" boats

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No the LCS is yet another example of pack too much into a hull that's too small to "save money". Only it doesn't save money, they wind up costing way more than they would have if they had have done it properly.

                The basic design of the Constellation is what the LCS should have been, only then the stupid comes and they're going to try the Constellation into a "mini destroyer". When actually the capability it should be design for is what the LCS was supposed to be.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why would the Navy need a 200k ton sub outside bragging rights tho?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have no idea, since I've never considered a 200,000 tonne submarine.
                How long is it?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't like that meme because
        1. Lockheed bullshit is almost always overhyped garbage as well. The actual success stories don't follow that pattern.
        2. Half of America's best weapons are counters to America's other best weapons.

        The Armour of the Abrams tank for example is specifically designed to negate long rod penetrators... which the Russians and Chinese don't use. It's still cool, because it's not an easy thing to do, but you know, cool self-own America.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          they also don't spend 69 squijillion dollars on it you turbo autistic retard, it's humor. it's supposed to get the point across not be 100% factually accurate.
          We don't know 1% of the shit that LockMarts Skunkworks is cooking so may as well just use LM for the joke.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/npqFgP1.png

        Every time, the us will be using anti-gravity crafts while the rest of the planet can barely into space in a few decades.

        Mutts are transcending the meaning of the word 'delusion' at this point.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Seethe chinkoid. You will never be human.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Would becoming human lump me in with mutts in some way? If yes I'm good.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Missed their target by 300 meters.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Arouser
      I've got a thing for cripples alright.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Arouser
      I've got a thing for cripples alright.

      Why do you always same fag this stupid shit.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >9 posts
        >9 posters
        >Samefag
        Anon...

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I have a phone and a desktop.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >thinks people only post from one device.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yeah but then you can't farm (you)s

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      She's cute. thankfully in the chair force she's got an advantage over everyone else.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      So does it count as a successful weapon if it can't hit a target within the space of a stadium? Can't even take out a tank or anything can you?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I haven't even seen a warship.
        Jesus Christ will you just fuck off.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >warships are 300 meter long, 200 meter wide elipses stationary elipses

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Warships are about the size of a house and sea skimming missiles come from the top

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >sea skimming
              >hypersonic
              >actively guided
              Physics says pick two. Hypersonic missiles come from above.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I pick all three because you're wrong.
                You're trying to talk about plasma stealth, which is definitely a factor, but they can still see a 200 meter long destroyer or a 300 meter long aircraft carrier moving at 80kph flat out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                See on what sensors? Optical is out, so is radar. What magic sensor can see through a mach 5+ plasma sheethe at sea level? Remember, the lower you fly the thicker the atmosphere.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sufficiently powerful radar and electro-optical will both work.
                It's not going to be able to track a fighter jet, but it will hit the side of an aircraft carrier. Because aircraft carriers are very big.

                You can also have them accelerate in for the terminal sprint, so even though it's now a dumb projectile, it's fired from fairly close range.

                You wouldn't want to have your AWACS going mach 5+, but there are solutions.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >sufficiently powerful radar
                You're constrained in both size and shape by the characteristic pointy duckbill of a hypersonic vehicle, and power constrained because a scramjet doesn't spin a shaft so you'll need a seperate generator / battery.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Zircon/Brahmos is 9 meters long, 900mm in diameter, and weighs 3 tonnes.
                I'm not saying it's easy, I'm just saying it's not impossible.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not convinced it's not impossible. You're proposing that you bruteforce a radar through a hypersonic plasma seethe at sea level. You'd need to be sending a signal powerful enough to penetrate the plasma on the way out, bounce off the ship, return, and have the return signal still be strong enough to penetrate the plasma. All on a missile that uses a scramjet, so has no way to generate electricity from the engine. You'd need a seperate gas turbine, operating at subsonic intake speeds (somehow), just to power the radar.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The sensor, whatever it is, only has to run for a minute or so.
                I'm not a radar guy but on a package that big I can see ways around the problem.
                With electro-optical for example it's passive, you just need to see the basic shape of a gigantic object in the middle of a blank background.

                It's not picking a tank doing the wiggles out of clutter, it's an aircraft carrier, it's a synonym for big.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's an aircraft carrier in the center of a carrier task force, including other very large ships that aren't the carrier like replenishment vessels and cruisers. All of which are simultaneously trying to jam, shoot down, decoy, and otherwise disrupt your missile. And you're trying to work this out through a plasma sheethe that's brighter than the sun and directly in front of your camera.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                So it misses the carrier and hits a destroyer. And you're firing 20 or 30 of these in a salvo against a CVBG.
                You're correct in saying there are counters to this plan but that's a bigger conversation.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >20-30
                Isn’t one of the points of these things is your supposed to only need to use a few because of how fuck fast they are to get through defenses?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                No?
                This is me

                [...]
                Yeah there's basically four ways to get passed area air defence.
                1. Stealth
                2. Armour
                3. Speed
                4. Saturation

                The US has put a lot of it's eggs in the stealth basket even though they've known how to build scramjets for a long time, I'm not convinced that was a great idea.

                In general the point I'm trying to make is that there's no room for complacency here.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lel. The amount of plasma at a couple meters(~5m) at sea level will be very very great that it even with cooling, it will have a hard time to use optical sensors in that region.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                moron you’d be liable to cook the crew alive with how powerful you’d need it to be.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, and airmen are really expensive to replace to. So no go on hypersonic AWACS.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If only Ukraine had some warships left to sink. Did they fire on their own just because they had nothing left to shoot at?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Chonky cutie ;_;

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      just my type

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    These retards use egg cartons for slated armor and you expect them to have hypersonic missiles?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >russia
    >hypersonic

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    parked next to the armata and su57 in an indiana jones style underground warehouse.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The actual translation from Russian to English of what hypersonic means is Hype-rus;(oink)

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Where the hell are they?
    Don't you remember? They fired a few at the start, then ran out.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Real talk about they hypersonic missile bantz for a second:

    My understanding is that China/Russia/Best Korea are developing these to get through the US's advanced missile defense systems. The US army hasn't really seen the need to develop their own because their regular missiles will do just fine against any defense system the other side has.

    That also explains why Russia wouldn't actually use a hypersonic missile against Ukraine since that'd be just a waste. These are ridiculously expensive systems tailor made to poke NATO's missile defense. The fact that they're way to expensive for Russia to maintain more than a dozen of them is another topic.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      the US has 2 hypersonic glide systems entering service next year or the year after.

      LRHW is for the army and navy
      Army is using a truck-mounted launcher
      Navy can theoretically use it on Zumwalt in 2025+, Block V Virginia SSNs 2026/7+, as well as current Ohio-class and future Columbia-class subs.

      ARRW is for the airforce and will likely be relegated to the B-52 for now as it's a long-range hypersonic weapon, so it doesn't really matter if the launch platform is slow and non-stealthy.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      JASSM kinda invalidates your argument

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        JASSM is a low-obersvability subsonic cruise missile

        Its strategy is to overwhelm missile defense systems through sheer number, and their low observability makes them hard to spot on radar and hard to hit by interceptors.
        It's kinda the opposite of the chinese/russian approach which is to go as fast as possible to avoid missile interceptors (or at least make the intercept very difficult with a low probability of success)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah
          the US focused on stealth missiles
          and russia/china focused on fast missiles
          now that JASSM and its variants are in service theyre working on getting some fast missiles too

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          yeah
          the US focused on stealth missiles
          and russia/china focused on fast missiles
          now that JASSM and its variants are in service theyre working on getting some fast missiles too

          Yeah there's basically four ways to get passed area air defence.
          1. Stealth
          2. Armour
          3. Speed
          4. Saturation

          The US has put a lot of it's eggs in the stealth basket even though they've known how to build scramjets for a long time, I'm not convinced that was a great idea.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            JASSM/LRASM is meant for both saturation and stealth
            theyre also working on a scramjet missile called HAWC

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              The trouble with saturation and stealth as a combo is the advances in radar make it very difficult to hide from/overwhelm modern destroyers.
              My assesment is that once you're talking about 4km/s missiles the real arms race is going to be about tough and survivable missiles that will complete their mission even after interception from insufficiently powerful interceptors.
              Thus the game is played by forcing your enemy to build heavily protected missiles with the tradeoff being smaller warheads and shorter range, getting them down to the point where they can pass through active defences but not penetrate a heavily armoured ship.

              That's just my theory though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The trouble with saturation and stealth as a combo is the advances in radar make it very difficult to hide from/overwhelm modern destroyers.
                Rapid dragon + decoys makes for a pretty good saturation ability.

                a C-17 can drop ~45 JASSM simultaneously, get a few C-17's flying together and you could potentially drop hundreds at once.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                And the lasest versions of AEGIS can track several thousand and engage several hundred targets simultaneously.

                The saturation idea worked in the 80s when the Ticonderogas were running their combat systems on Commodore 64s, you just can't overwhelm a modern system which can put a hundred or so ESSMs in the air at a time. Stealth improves the effects of saturation to a point, but not sufficiently that it's going to be able to keep up with advances in computing and radar.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                When you're also dealing with an equal number of decoys or even 2x as many decoys?? How do you discriminate between decoys and the real deal?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Through a combination of better radars and software for a start.
                But even so, 45 missiles + 90 decoys is still only 135 targets. Shoot em all, let God sort em out.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The trouble with saturation and stealth as a combo is the advances in radar make it very difficult to hide from/overwhelm modern destroyers.
                Sea skimming missiles give their target (assuming they are detected) something like literally 30 seconds at most to decide if they're even being fired on, or if they're experiencing a glitch/someone is throwing a tin pan in front of the radar array.
                Add stealth to the equation and there's an extremely high probability the commander and radar operator are still thinking things over when they explode, if they even detect the incoming at all.
                Unironically, the human factor means stealth munitions are a total out of context problem.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Sea skimming missiles give their target (assuming they are detected) something like literally 30 seconds at most to decide if they're even being fired on,
                That's speed. Option 3

                [...]
                Yeah there's basically four ways to get passed area air defence.
                1. Stealth
                2. Armour
                3. Speed
                4. Saturation

                The US has put a lot of it's eggs in the stealth basket even though they've known how to build scramjets for a long time, I'm not convinced that was a great idea.

                >when they explode
                Please stop being retarded on the internet.

                >Has the Ukraine airforce actually managed to achieve something have they?
                A shockingly high number of sorties, helicopter raid against Russian territory, etc.
                They shouldn't be able to fly at all, and yet shitbox drones are fragging the very machines that are supposed to be capable of engaging F35s.
                It's laughable.

                >Has the Ukraine airforce actually managed to achieve something have they?
                yeah, they still fucking exist 8 months after being "200% destroyed"

                So no. That's what you're saying there is "no, they haven't managed to be the decisive element in anything at all."
                Journalists are trained in bullshit, not war, so if your understanding of what comes from journalists then what you actually know about war is bullshit.
                If I wanted the TV's opinion I would turn on the TV.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >all this projection
                You're such an independent and free thinker, blindly repeating whatever /chug/ and a selection of russian telegram channels tell you to believe

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >theyre also working on a scramjet missile called HAWC
              HAWC was a DARPA project that has moved into a new DARPA project called MoHAWC (no I'm not kidding) which got funding for FY23. However the HAWC demonstrator DID influence the Airforce program of record called HACM (Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile) The HACM contract was awarded to Raytheon just about 2 weeks ago. Planned to enter service around 2027/8.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I forgot about HACM
                the US is going to have fucking four different competing (real) hypersonic missiles by 2030, at minimum, and we probably won't export any to allies until 2040
                all because Russia pretended that air launching a big ass missile with half the stages was "hypersonic"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's the MiG-25 to F-15 pipeline all over again, lel.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Given the dismal performance of Russian AA this war in terms of detecting, identifying, and engaging targets in a timely fashion - I think surface skimming stealth munitions was exactly the correct decision.
            Even if they detect those they're never going to respond in time.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Has the Ukraine airforce actually managed to achieve something have they?
              If you learn war from retarded journalists then even assuming you're not a retard, which seems unlikely given that you're learning about war from journalists, your understanding of war is, at best, retarded.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Has the Ukraine airforce actually managed to achieve something have they?
                A shockingly high number of sorties, helicopter raid against Russian territory, etc.
                They shouldn't be able to fly at all, and yet shitbox drones are fragging the very machines that are supposed to be capable of engaging F35s.
                It's laughable.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Has the Ukraine airforce actually managed to achieve something have they?
                yeah, they still fucking exist 8 months after being "200% destroyed"

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >surface skimming stealth munitions
              not a "skimming" stealth munition but that reminds me of the spooky ghost boat UUV that cropped up and no one ever talked about again

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          [...]
          Yeah there's basically four ways to get passed area air defence.
          1. Stealth
          2. Armour
          3. Speed
          4. Saturation

          The US has put a lot of it's eggs in the stealth basket even though they've known how to build scramjets for a long time, I'm not convinced that was a great idea.

          Retard here, why not just have one in ten cruise missiles/MIRVs soley dedicated to EW the same way we equip our bombers for missions that involve penetrating air defenses? Stealth notwithstanding, you could probably jam anything short of multiple ground-based AESAs when you account for the already existing EW modules most cruise missiles carry. The only flaw I can think of at the moment is that the necessity of formation flying would leave the missiles nearly helpless against nuclear-tipped ABMs like picrel.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Supposedly the Brahmos/Zircon has that capability. One missile is the "leader" missile that flies high while the rest hide below the horizon. If the leader missile gets destroyed another one flies up to take it's place.

            The thing about ECM is that it's effective against some things, and a homing beacon to others. Again one of the things that the Brahmos can supposedly do is actually home in on a jamming signal.

            So what you're saying isn't retarded, but it's a small piece of a bigger puzzle.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I think a multi-faceted solution of stealth, EW and saturation should do the trick for most land-based targets. That seems liks the best way to overcome most defenses. I don't know how useful supersonic capability is outside of certain applications like anti-ship work or nuclear bombardment/interception though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The solution would be to have a million invisible invincible missiles traveling at the speed of light.

                You don't even need what you're talking about for ground targets. You just need to know where they are and launch a ballistic missile at them. But you can't sink the ground either.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >why not just have one in ten cruise missiles/MIRVs soley dedicated to EW
            Because, especially for MIRVs, it's pointless. Interceptors for MIRVs are more expensive than the things they intercept, so the solution to any MIRV kinetic defence system that you could beat with EW is to just build more MIRVs (treaty limitations notwithstanding).

            Cruise missiles (that are of reasonably modern design) are mostly the same. It's not economical to intercept them in most cases, so you can efficiently "counter" any anti-cruise missile system by just building more cruise missiles.

            Where stealth comes into it is when it comes time to replace your cruise missiles; if it costs roughly the same to make a LO standoff weapon as a normal one it's a no brainer to just build the LO option. Hypersonics don't cost roughly the same as what they replace.

            Where hypersonics come in is:
            1. Against self-protecting hardened targets like fleets where the problem of getting saturation stops being one of economics and starts to have real operational implications
            2. Strikes with no warning so things can't be moved/can't shoot back.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Funny thing is while HGVs are cool and all there's already counters being set up in both early warning and interception. The real killer here is air breathing hypersonics.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >My understanding is that China/Russia/Best Korea are developing these to get through the US's advanced missile defense systems.
      This is incorrect, the Zircon and the Brahmos are basically the same missile defeloped in partnership between Russia and India.
      >The US army hasn't really seen the need to develop their own because their regular missiles will do just fine against any defense system the other side has.
      *Navy
      >That also explains why Russia wouldn't actually use a hypersonic missile against Ukraine since that'd be just a waste.
      Correct. They do have a land attack capability, but Scuds are just as fast and much cheaper.
      >These are ridiculously expensive systems tailor made to poke NATO's missile defense
      Not specifically NATO, but generally speaking this is correct.
      >The fact that they're way to expensive for Russia to maintain more than a dozen of them is another topic.
      That's not really the way it works. Russia's missile force is a seperate force to the army/navy/air force. And it's less about maintaining them and more about the productive capacity to produce and improve them. We've seen plenty of precision strikes from Russian missiles, the Kyvvi Rih dam attacks were a good example, Russia doesn't skimp on it's missiles because they offer a low cost high effect counter to NATO. On the other hand their surface navy is pretty sub-par because it's very expensive but doesn't actually do much for a land power like Russia.

      It's the same reason the USMC rolled across Iraq using mostly humvees with a few LAVs here and there, because it just doesn't make sense for a sea power like the United States to spend huge amounts of money on a massive fleet of IFVs which don't actually do much for it in terms of territorial self defence, if you want to attack America directly you've got to get passed their navy anyway so it makes a lot more sense for the United States to spend money on it's Navy and Air Force.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The vatniks blew up a farm with one pf the hypermemes.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And two dams and half a dozen factories. Meanwhile the HIMARS is yet to take out a bridge.
        Jesus fuck you cunts have selective memory.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > HIMARS destroys gorillion ammo depots, unironically almost single handedly turns the tide of the war with less than 50
          > "yet to take out a bridge"

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Lockheed propaganda gives me the dicktingles
            The only thing Lockheed does well.

            Are you planning on only shooting them at anchor?

            A Zircon missile is 9m long, weighs three tonnes, and carries 450kg of Plastic Explosives. If that hits an an anchor chain it will blow the front half of a destroyer into an anime isekai.
            These aren't long range RPG-7s, they make the Yamato guns look like toys.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Post Dnipro bridge traffic.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        throwing a soviet-era ballistic missile from a soviet-era plane isn't really what civilized nations would consider a proper hypersonic missile

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sure, but the US didn't like the media attention it was getting, so they decided to BTFO whatever russia was claiming with real hypersonic missiles of their own.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The US
            >Lockheed
            Pick one.
            These missiles are Lockheed missiles, in terms of vapourware Lockheed are the reigning champs.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              HACM is Raytheon
              LRHW and ARRW are Lockheed though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >HACM is Raytheon
                Well that one might work then.
                They're no saints either, but they're not Lockheed.

                Fusion is just 20 years away anon, believe it

                I used to have a meme for that. 20 years is engineer for "we've got no idea how to do it but we want you to fund it anyway."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                The fact Lockheed has convinced all 3 major branches to buy their HGV is either incredibly impressive bluffing, or the thing actually works.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's neither, it's the only thing Lockheed does well.
                What they do is they build factories in critical electorates and then use the promise of jobs/threat of job losses to bully politicians who are dazzled by shitty 3D animations showing "how the system works" even though the system doesn't work.
                Then they feed bullshit numbers to the government accountability office to make it look like a good deal (for this non-existant system)
                Then they get to work on the real task which is "afterwork", which is management speak for all of the work needed to get their complete lemon of a system to actually vaguely function, though hardly ever in the way that would actually do what they said it was going to do.
                And all of this is achieved 10 years behind schedule and 500% over budget.

                For other countries they don't bother with all of that, they just bribe the selection committee.

                They're fucking crooks. They keep getting away with it because everyone ASSUMES they cleaned up their act after the last time they got found out, only they never do. It's like asking Bernie Madoff to manage your life saving AFTER he went to prison. It's mind blowing.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Fusion is just 20 years away anon, believe it

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            the media reception was truly obnoxious

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why can't anyone find a picture of zircon?
    Every single one is either brahmos or the fucking Boeing waverider with USAF logos still on it.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Right next to the Armata divisions.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Mach 8
    >Speed: Mach 7

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >what do you need mach 6 speed for?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Mach 8
      >Speed: Mach 7
      >theoretical max speed: Mach 6
      >recommended max speed: Mach 5
      >maximum observed speed: Mach 4
      >optimal speed: Mach 3
      >long range speed (planned use): Mach 2
      >eco mode speed: Mach 1
      >maximum speed before civilian Garmin GPS on missile stops working: 550km/h

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        speed before civilian Garmin GPS on missile stops working: 550km/h

        oof

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > tested speed: 0 (still in factory)

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Look I realize that this is actually rocket science, so expecting you current memers to actually have a fucking clue is obviously asking too much.
          But just to be clear do you fucking dumb fucking gays actually expect the navies of the west to turn to their young men and woman in uniform and say "don't worry, the Russian missiles probably don't even work, so he's a .38 revolver and a rubber dinghy now go fight China"?

          Holy fuck, you don't have to be in every fucking thread. It's bad enough you're here at all, but the rest of us would actually like to discuss some weapons too.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Look I realize that this is actually rocket science, so expecting you current memers to actually have a fucking clue is obviously asking too much. But just to be clear do you fucking dumb fucking gays actually expect the navies of the east to turn to their young men and woman in uniform and say "don't worry, the missiles probably work, so he's a .38 revolver and a rubber dinghy now go fight America"?

            Holy fuck, you don't have to be in every fucking thread. It's bad enough you're here at all, but the rest of us would actually like to discuss some weapons too.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I guarantee you they're fucking not.
              They're telling their own that they're going to be fighting actual fucking gundams.
              And I'm not in every thread, I ignore your fuck because you've NEVER got anything the least bit interesting to say.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >do you fucking dumb fucking gays actually expect the navies of the east to turn to their young men and woman in uniform and say "don't worry, the missiles probably work, so he's a .38 revolver and a rubber dinghy now go fight America"?
              this is literally what happened with Moskva though, she was on patrol with her point defense missiles fucked, her area defense missiles inoperable during satellite calls, and her point defense ethanol-cooled and therefore uncooled

              Russia thought that was good enough and sent it into an active combat zone, only to lose her to a country with no navy.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                According to who? I've heard 20 different stories about what happened to the Moskva.
                Because there's too many fucking retards that want to meme about it, while big brains are sitting here thinking "Jesus Christ, I hope that doesn't happen to one of our ships."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                according to the leaked maintenance report
                https://mobile.twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1519742639922454528
                if a US ship was set to sea in such a state that the ESSM didn't work, the SM-2 didn't work while comms were active, and someone drank all the Phalanx coolant; there would be courts martial

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >according to one guy on twitter
                Exactly. We're back to the don't worry about anything, the enemy is incompetent, so here's a sharp stick and a rowboat, you'll be fine.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I have no idea what I'm talking about so everyone has no idea what they're talking about
                You can pretend Russia is competent and a near-peer all you want, that illusion died to any objective observer eight months ago.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You can pretend Ru
                moron CHINA IS A START A WAR IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
                I know what I'm talking about, it's you that thinks it's going to be a walk in the park because it's what social media fucking told you to think.
                I guaran-fucking-tee you it's not true. We are STILL learning shit about battle fought 100 years ago, and you reckon you've got the current war sorted out WHILE IT'S STILL HAPPENING?
                You're a fucking idiot, it's as simple as that.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >>You can pretend Ru
                >moron CHINA IS A START A WAR
                ESL or seething so hard you can't type?
                >more autistic screeching
                ok, cool, Russia is still losing

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Russia is still losing
                I
                DON'T
                GIVE
                A
                SINGLE
                SOLITARY
                LONELY
                VIRGIN
                FUCK
                about your current meme.

                I'm here to discuss how to win the next war. You don't need to be in every fucking thread.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >more autistic screeching
                don't pop a vein seething about imaginary chinks, if you're this mad at the internet it's time to log off

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'll pop you in the fucking face if I ever meet you in person.
                Then I will drag your unconcious body to the nearest navy recruiting office, forge your fucking signature, put you on a fucking boat on it's way to conduct a freedom of navigation exercise through the taiwan straight, with a note in your pocket saying "don't worry, their missiles probably don't even work."

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You came into a thread about Russian missiles, got incredibly upset nobody wants to talk to you about Chinese missiles, and are now threatening to beat me up behind the school because that's a thing mature and serious adults do on prestigious internet message boards such as fourchannel dot org.

                Have you considered turning off your computer?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                They use the same fucking missiles retard.
                And they're actually an Indian design.
                If you belonged on this board you'd either already know that, or know that someone here knows more than you.

                So yeah, I think press ganging you for being an arrogant cunt is perfect justice. Far be it for me to send someone actually worth a damn into harms way when you'll do.

                Have you considered just fucking off?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >They use the same fucking missiles retard. And they're actually an Indian design.
                China's premier hypersonic is the DF-17, not a fucking Brahmos clone. The rest of your post is more impotent seething. Are you just going to keep replying until you stroke out? Isn't it abjectely humiliating to be so fucking worked up and yet get basic facts wrong, like claiming China operates Brahmos?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >DF-17, not a fucking Brahmos clone.
                CORRECT.
                But the YJ-21 outfitted on the Type 055 destroyer, is.
                But don't worry, they probably don't work.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're really, really obsessed with this strawman you've created. Nobody but you has said Chinese missiles don't work because nobody but you has been talking about Chinese missiles this entire fucking thread. The only Russian "hypersonic" actually demonstrated in combat is Kinzhal, to poor effect.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't bring up Chinese missiles. You did.
                I pointed out that this isn't the last war.
                But you want me to turn around and tell the young men and women who have to actually go into harms way to protect your right to vociferous fuckwit on social media not to worry about what capabilities they need to keep themselves safe while they do it, because the Russian ships just explode due to alcoholism according to fucking Twitter.
                And I think you should be volunteered to go in their place.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I didn't bring up Chinese missiles

                >You can pretend Ru
                moron CHINA IS A START A WAR IN THE NEXT 20 YEARS.
                I know what I'm talking about, it's you that thinks it's going to be a walk in the park because it's what social media fucking told you to think.
                I guaran-fucking-tee you it's not true. We are STILL learning shit about battle fought 100 years ago, and you reckon you've got the current war sorted out WHILE IT'S STILL HAPPENING?
                You're a fucking idiot, it's as simple as that.

                >moron CHINA IS A START A WAR

                Look I realize that this is actually rocket science, so expecting you current memers to actually have a fucking clue is obviously asking too much.
                But just to be clear do you fucking dumb fucking gays actually expect the navies of the west to turn to their young men and woman in uniform and say "don't worry, the Russian missiles probably don't even work, so he's a .38 revolver and a rubber dinghy now go fight China"?

                Holy fuck, you don't have to be in every fucking thread. It's bad enough you're here at all, but the rest of us would actually like to discuss some weapons too.

                >so he's a .38 revolver and a rubber dinghy now go fight China"

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Where does the word "missile" appear?
                While we're at it, where did the word "Ukraine" appear in the OP?

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're such a dumb fucking moron. You deserve no other response. Please @ me again so I can laugh at you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >But you want me to turn around and tell the young men and women who have to actually go into harms way to protect your right to vociferous fuckwit on social media not to worry about what capabilities they need to keep themselves safe while they do
                You made literally all of this up. You're arguing with yourself. Also, ESL.
                >because the Russian ships just explode due to alcoholism according to fucking Twitter.
                The official Russian explanation is "the ship exploded on it's own due to incompetent crew", the Ukranian MoD explanation is they fired two cruise subsonic missiles and had a drone observing and that was enough to bypass S-300, Osa, and AK-630 to sink the ship. The leaked explanation, which is consistent with Ukranian accounts, is that none of those systems worked to begin with. No matter who you choose to believe, "Moskva sunk because of grave Russian incompetence" appears to be objectively correct.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The official Russian explanation
                >the Ukranian MoD explanation
                And the fuckwit I'm responding to's explanation is alcaholism.
                Good that's fucking sorted, don't worry young sailors patrolling the south china sea, the Russian crews are incompetent.

                OR we don't actually have enough good information to be sure we've covered all our bases.
                That's what I choose to believe because I'm not a fucking idiot that thinks CNN has any fucking clue what it's talking about.

                You're such a dumb fucking moron. You deserve no other response. Please @ me again so I can laugh at you.

                Jesus Christ you fucking deserve everything bad that's coming, every last bomb, every last hardship, you're not fucking worth fighting for.
                But unfortunately you're going to be hiding behind the skirts of people who don't have a big fucking mouth and no brain. And we can't protect them without protecting you.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I understand your need to reply to literally every post, you're just a malignant narc who will literally camp this thread until it falls off the board just to get the last word in. What I don't understand is your almost pathological need to conflate Russia and China. Russia CAN'T just be as incompetent as they've repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be, because CHINA IS SCARY, BE SCARED! It's not based in any logic or coherent thought, just a vague hatred of any source of information put in front of you and a vague fear of chinks.

                You'll reply to this post anyways, though.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Meanwhile in reality.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I understand your need to reply to literally every post, you're just a malignant narc who will literally camp this thread until it falls off the board just to get the last word in.
                Well fucking done cunt, you must have a degree in psychology, that's seems like the sort of useless shit a cunt like you would spend 50 grand to have someone read the textbook to you.

                >What I don't understand is your almost pathological need to conflate Russia and China.
                This is a thread about fucking missiles retard. And you want to tell me that the only piece of evidence worth discussing about the threat of hypersonic anti-ship missiles is that Russian sailors got drunk accoding to twitter, because you've NOTHING AT ALL to say about missiles or anti-missile systems, you're here because you're support the current fucking meme because you think THIS IS twitter.

                And I am going to tell you as many time as it takes to fuck off because you're a retard. You've got NO reason to be here.
                You've got no interest in weapons.
                You've never served.
                You never will (unless we fucking pressgang you which we absolutely should).
                You just want to be a gaym which you have done with maginificent success, one presumes because you've had a lot of practice.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                lol he's still going

                there's literally nothing else to say, you're only capable of communicating in strawman arguments and gaslighting

                so lol, that's all you get, lol, lmao

                now reply to me like a good slut and I might let you cum

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Fucking hell you're observant.
                What the fuck are you still when everything you've said has already been proven dumb and you're every attempt to cover was also dumb.

                Oh you think you're trolling me? Yeah that seems like something a february fuckwit would think.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What the fuck are you still when everything you've said has already been proven dumb and you're every attempt to cover was also dumb.
                man I know I've already called you ESL because you clearly are, but holy shit this was incoherent even for you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >man I know I've already called you ESL because I have nothing else to say
                I thought you studies psychology like a useless gay, you should know what someone thinking faster than they can type looks like.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >thinking faster than they can type
                Excellent euphemism for seething and hammering keys incoherently, but your English is still shit. Being a native speaker makes your performance here more embarrassing, not less.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                moron you're the one who came into this thread to be twitter levels of stupid
                Got called on it
                And won't leave.
                Because you think that's what trolling is.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You keep feeding me (You)s with incoherent ragebabble. You've created an entire fucking cinematic universe of strawman arguments and personal assumptions you've made up for me. Keeping you here is doing a service to the rest of the board, if you're busy ruining this thread you aren't elsewhere ruining a thread that has value. Why should I stop?

                You'll reply to this too, because you're a moron. I own you, and you'll reply like a good slut.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                garden gnomes are preparing new bill with USA tanks given to garden gnomekraine for free. new package will be signed around December. so far ukrainian war costed fatmericans around 2.7 trillion dollars.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                absolutely based, M1s for Ukraine is an objectively good idea and anyone who disagrees with me is a russian bot

                we should send F-15s too so they can establish air dominance, then fun toys like A-10s and AC-130s

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                A small price to pay for the downfall of Russia, with no American boots on the ground at all.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Only 2.7?
                The one fucking time I'm paying my taxes and these assholes skimp on me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >so far ukrainian war costed fatmericans around 2.7 trillion dollars.
                Lolol what? The US has given about $20B in aid, which is massive, but nowhere near even $1T let alone $2.7T

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >so far ukrainian war costed fatmericans around 2.7 trillion dollars.
                Anything's possible if you lie!

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                nice twitter screenshot. the Moskva still floats and is 100% operational despite your pathetic western propaganda. your lies are being exposed daily on the battlefield and russia is in complete control of eastern ukraine. kyiv will come soon. cope

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Since you're already depressed, why not kill yorself? You want to do it, nobody would miss you

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are retarded
                YJ21 is an asbm. The Brahmos is a cruise missile

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                You forgot the clapping emojis. Jesus christ could you be any more of a fag.

                I didn't even read what you two queers were arguing about, but that guys right, you suck dicks in an angry i'm not happy that i'm a gay kind of a way.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        they lie so much they even lie about the lies on the same lie.
        did they even have the first man in space or was that also a giant lie?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Name has Mach 8
      >Speed has Mach 7 (5370.88 MPH)
      >Listed as 5328 MPH (Mach 6)

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Russia used their only working Kinzhal to miss a building, sorry, "hit an underground warehouse" back in March

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    is nobody going to point out they're using an image of Brahmos?

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why do people seem to think a missile going faster means it explodes harder or something

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because it does. A hypersonic ASM can do severe damage to a ship even after it has been "shot down" through momentum alone. It weighs three tonnes and travels at 4,000m/s, it's kinetic energy alone will punch straight through anything floating today.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Too bad you have to slow them down to a crawl to hit anything smaller than a city

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That is not true.

          100m cep is fine when you're targeting a 200m ship.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you planning on only shooting them at anchor?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >comparing circular error to ship length
            unless your ships look like this the CEP is misleading, you basically need active sensors to hit a moving ship. Active sensors require moving less than mach 5 in terminal.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              >CEP is misleading
              That was my point moron, tell

              Too bad you have to slow them down to a crawl to hit anything smaller than a city

              Sea Skimming missiles attack from the side, not the top, btw.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              You can also have sensors from other assets feeding real-time data into an inertial guidance system in the terminal warhead, pretty sure the Chinese will be relying on this

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >and its working 155mm superguns with vast ammo reserves
    No that's what I'm saying, in 2025 the Zumwalt goes in for upgrades, has the 155mm AGS removed and what they're calling APMs (Advanced Payload Modules) based on the VPMs (Virginia Payload Modules) being used on the Block V Virginia-class SSNs. The APMs can fit 3 LRHWs or 6 tomahawks (and likely other similar-sized vertical launch missiles)
    I don't know if they've confirmed how many APMs they're installing on the Zumwalt yet, but I'd assume between 3 and 6, but possibly up to 8.

    But in anycase, the end result will be Zumwalt is dropping the 155mm guns and replacing them with more missiles and the capability of firing hypersonic glide missiles.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    ARRW is Air Force and LRHW iS US Army, ARRW will deliver in quantity while LRHW is a tossup, neither are navy so 0% chance of the program getting cut and cancelled for no reason like Zumwalt

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      LRHW is 100% for the navy.

      see

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

      meanwhile, the US has ARRW and LRHW entering service next year or the year after.

      > The Navy intends to field the weapon aboard its Zumwalt-class destroyers by 2025 and later on its Block V Virginia-class submarines in 2028; it was intended to also be fielded on guided missile variants of the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, but funding delays and the boats' impending retirement caused those plans to be scrapped

      > The Navy will request FY 2022 funding to replace the 155 mm AGS turrets with Advanced Payload Modules for the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) hypersonic missile
      > The conversion would be part of the DDG 1000 Dry-Docking Selected Restricted Availability (DSRA) beginning FY 2024. The CPS is a joint program with the Army referred to as Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW), which is also slated for Block V Virginia-class attack submarines (SSN). The larger tubes for the vertical launch system (VLS) will be based upon the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) used in the Virginia SSNs. The first Zumwalt-class destroyer is planned to be equipped with the CPS in 2025.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        LRHW isn't "for the navy," the navy is using it but it was designed according to Army standards with intention to deploy using land-based launcher
        the navy can pull out like spastic retards if they want, it's up to the Army whether the LRHW program dies

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          They all stem from the PGS program which was a program being run by the DoD with involvement from all the branches of the military.

          The PGS program spawned the C-HGB (Common-Hypersonic Glide Body) which is shared between all 3 platforms, the Army LRHW, the Navy LRHW, and the Airforce ARRW.

          You can't claim it's wholly an army program.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            yes, but the C-HGB (Navy component) is already done, so I don't give a fuck if LRHW's not "wholly" an Army program, it sure isn't a Navy one, the primary source of funds for LRHW maturation is the Army budget and not the Navy

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >B-Boris blyat! Let us *hic* be of making missile to outpace any warning system of westerners!
    >Chyooooort Ivan! Let us *hic*...let us also give it range of Tochka-U!? No?

    Leave it to r*ssoids to be the leaders in weapon design concepts but be so poor that their cutting edge designs lag 10+ years behind the west by the time they progress past the drawing board.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    in putin's dreams.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's not a Zircon, that's an Onyx

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    glove-peeling is very long process, please understand

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    General "hypersonics" questions: when compared to typical ballistic missile payloads, what tradeoffs do those HGV payloads make? It's all just extra cost for extra speed and terminal guidance, right? Or do non hypersonic payloads also have good terminal guidance? Then for HCMs, do they fulfill some other niche objective aside from getting through defenses that regular cruise missiles can't?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      HGVs terminal guidance comes in the form of airbrakes. Basically what happens is you overshoot the target and then when the vehicle is over the target it taps the brakes and drops down on a steep trajectory.

      Hypersonic anti-ship missiles on the other hand use a scramjet and fly like a very fast and not particularly maneuverable plane. They're designed to fly into the side of something.

      So the only thing they really have in common is that they're very fast.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    They destroyed all the HATO pig farms*~~*~~*~~

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    wasted on terror targets

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Where the hell are they?

    I'd imagine they're quite expensive and the more you use them the more chance NATO has to study them. Is there anything in Ukraine that they really need to blow up that bad?

  27. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wheres the uko Navy to shoot them at?

  28. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sub launches are fucking retarded, the ocean adds way to much corrosion potential even if it's for a short period of time.

  29. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What did the Mighty Russian Bear mean by this?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Winter is coming, bear is sleepy and goes home to hibernate. No more special military operation, sleepy times only.

  30. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Honest question: how does a taiwan straight naval battle actually play out if china has hundreds or thousands of hypersonic missiles? They can't be shot down since they're so fast, right? So won't the USN operating there just get sunk?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Taiwan strait battle
      Simple the US isn't retarded enough to send everything into the strait, more importantly even if China has that many missiles they likely don't have that many missile launchers.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >they likely don't have that many missile launchers.
        Oh wow, new levels of absolute dumb from the same gay who knows nothing about anything else either.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm the one who brought up Musk sending to the Tesla to Mars, not the retard talking about Submarine launches.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well what you said was still dumb.
            The launcher is just a truck. Missile launchers cost nothing, it's the missile that costs the money.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Would you say they're turning them out like sausages?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Likely the USN would actually be in the taiwan straight, rather there'd be an air-sea battle in the area around Taiwan for control of the straight.

      But I don't actually consider that scenario likely.

  31. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Inside your head, rent free of course

  32. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is this butthurt fag the same retard who was arguing that destroyers or some other part of the carrier group were way too small to mount an effective radar, and they needed to be, like, twice the size of a carrier in order to work? There's an obvious through line for these ideas, they mostly seem to conclude, against all logic, that nautical megaplatforms are the solution to some problem, typically imagined, i.e. no-one is complaining, let alone worried about the effectiveness of US carrier groups, except those who stand to face them in active combat, or the genius idea to bankroll the R and D of a massive submarine platform no navy has even a passing interest in fielding, for the purposes of trying to launch payloads to orbit, when other, cheaper, more efficient, doubtless more effective methods are not only theoretically possible, but ALREADY EXIST.

    It smacks of Mike Sparksian delusions, a complete divorce from common sense, and a wilful ignorance of anything anyone else says, comes across as arrogant. He gets real angry too, very combative.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >t. neverserved

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        And are we supposed to believe you did?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh yeah, that's another of his favourite ones, attacking other people's credentials, as if serving in the navy automatically means your ideas are better.

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