Why are nato missles so short ranged? Posted on March 5, 2023 by PrepHole Contributor Why are nato missles so short ranged?
because they have good air forces
this. plus ziggers and bugmen lie about that shit
>why is the range of American artillery shorter than that of Russian ICBMs
The only people dumber than OP's bait are the retards caught by it:
because of numerous treaties signed which prohibited development
Americans are falling behind
because nato has airplanes to blow shit up at a distance
they would just get obliterated by air defenses
source? sounds like cope
The US invented modern SEAD. NATO forces will have at least (at LEAST) a fighting chance against enemy AA, regardless of who that enemy is or where they're fighting.
>they would just get obliterated by air defenses
those are still standoff weapons.
airplanes don't have to invade any contested air space.
israeli f35s have been dabbing on russian made air defence for quite a while now
Manufacturers of NATO equipment tend to understate the capabilities of their equipment, and western governments may classify the actual capabilities.
Eastern equipment (mostly Russian and Chinese) tend to take the maximum theoretical range of their weapons and grossly overestimate accurate effective range to claim an edge over their counterparts.
Western forces also have a heavier focus on air power, and actually comply with treaties on IRBMs and SRBMs.
Next time just tell the siberiana and chinks they are fags
>specifically excluding ICBMs to paint a false narrative.
the inclusion of "Warsaw", "Berlin","London", "CONUS" etc. in this chart is such funny fearmongering.
The INF eliminated the GLCM (ground launched tomahawk) and Pershing II, which had a range of 2,780km and 1,770km respectively. China was never pursuant to the treaty, and the SSC-8 + ground launched Kaliber listed on the OP picture were deployed by Russia in violation of the INF leading to the US withdrawing in 2018.
Now that the US has left the INF, we've rapidly fielded the Mid Range Capability which has a ground launched Tomahawk with presumably the same ranges as the GLCM.
Additionally, since air-launched missiles were never covered by the treaty, aircraft with long ranged cruise missiles make up a significant portion of US striking power and can be fired from standoff distances outside air defense.
Impressive. Very nice. Now let's see the Minuteman III's range.
The missile that can barely reach Beijing from California?
to be fair it was designed to kill Russians, who are considerably closer... and was designed in the 60s
And only from the western hemisphere
Treaties, and because longer ranged missiles are more costly, easier to intercept, and less versatile.
You don't design a missile to go as far as possible with the most explode as possible. You select a capability you want to have, then design a weapon to fill that niche. The needs of China, The United States, and Russia are all different.
China requires long ranged missiles with lots of striking power, because their most likely existential threat is a war with the United States - which means that while they can contest the sea and sky, they're likely going to lose those fights eventually.
Such a war is, if it does occur, going to happen in their backyard which means they can base lots of munitions on land whereas American munitions need to be air or sea mobile. That means few restrictions on size or weight, and a need to be able to reach out and threaten ships that are potentially thousands of kilometers offshore, which necessitates huge and complex missiles.
The United States on the other hand is going to mount most of its missiles to mobile platforms which means you can spare more of the missile's total capability budget for things like evasiveness, improved accuracy, cost reduction, smaller size to ease logistical burden, etc. Specifically because you can either maneuver into range to fire, or in the case of air launched munitions, they can effectively be toss bombed to massively improve their range.
Tomahawk vs Kalibr perfectly demonstrates this. An export Kalibr is $6.5 million with about 35% more real range, compared to the Tomahawk's $1.8 million. And in exchange the Tomahawk has significantly better accuracy, and grossly superior nape of the earth performance. The massive cost savings besides being smaller are mostly because truly enormous numbers of Tomahawks have been produced.
It gets a lot more nuanced than that, but basically you get a lot more bang for your buck when you can expect to retain air and sea launch capability.
This was very informative and well-written anon, good job. Are you implying that the American warfighting, despite its notorious procurement processes and ravenous MIC, can actually be fairly economical if allowed to play to its strengths?
>can actually be fairly economical if allowed to play to its strengths?
was during CW.
now not anymore. downsized too much. read the latest CSIS report:
>The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately
>prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists. It is currently operating at
>a tempo better suited to a peacetime environment. In a
>major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the
>Taiwan Strait—the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed
>the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense
>(DoD), leading to a problem of “empty bins.”
>According to the results of a series of CSIS war games,
>for instance, the United States would likely run out of
>some munitions—such as long-range, precision-guided
>munitions—in less than one week in a Taiwan Strait conflict.
>These shortfalls would make it extremely difficult for the
>United States to sustain a protracted conflict—and, equally
>concerning, the deficiencies undermine deterrence.
>They also highlight that the U.S. defense industrial base lacks
>adequate surge capacity for a major war. These problems
>are particularly concerning since China is heavily investing
>in munitions and acquiring high-end weapons systems and
>equipment five to six times faster than the United States,
>according to some U.S. government estimates.2
>gib me more toys
>>They also highlight that the U.S. defense industrial base lacks
surge capacity for a major war. These problems
>>are particularly concerning since China is heavily investing
>>in munitions and acquiring high-end weapons systems and
five to six times faster than the United States,
to some U.S. government estimates.2
I agree with the gist of the report that munition stockpiles should be deeper but;
The above statement is essentially meaningless. Yes, China is investing much faster because China barely had a meaningful standing army, and had almost literally no navy 15 years ago. It's far easier to invest in capabilities when you have no capabilities to maintain to begin with. They aren't surging ahead, they're playing catch-up.
As they catch up, that investment will scale back dramatically because more and more of the operational budget will be tied up in payroll, maintenance, training, etc.
That's not to say China isn't a threat, or belligerently retarded - they are; it's just not a surprise or very meaningful to state that they're 'investing' five to six times faster.
And yes, a dangerous opinion, I know.
Initial development costs for advanced technologies are almost always some degree of 'extremely expensive' but as long as you actually go on to build those technologies in significant numbers and give them a decent service life, you save tons of money.
Or you can go the Russian route and develop decent stuff you're too poor to actually build. Then, the engineers start to quit because they aren't being paid since they aren't working on anything - so the government is forced to give them a new development project in order to retain their institutional experience. So they burn more money developing more stuff no one can afford to buy, and worsen an already vicious cycle.
It's the prime reason why if you're a small or poor nation you need to just buy shit from someone else. The supply chain and institutional knowledge requirements for complex machines are simply too tall an order for small economies to meet on their own. Russia's delusions of Empire have fucked it, because they have the economy of a middling European power, but the military aspirations of the United States. A realistic assessment and rebuild of the Russian military industrial complex would've seen them continue to develop things like jets and missiles in cooperation with the Chinese, while they simply bought most of their basic bitch kit from the Chinese to save money.
>The supply chain and institutional knowledge requirements for complex machines are simply too tall an order for small economies to meet on their own.
Bullshit. The primary limiting factor is genetics, as in lack of high IQ people capable of understanding natural science and applied natural science, aka technology. North Korea is a small country with a small economy but it has long range precision guided muntions and nuclear bombs. Nigeria is much hugher both in population and total GNP but doesnt manufacture anything beyond machetes. The declining US manufacturing base is not only because of outsourcing but also because of a lack of high IQ individuals capable of understanding what they are doing. Average IQ in America is approx 90 by now across the total population (with f.ex Finland and Iceland being 100-102). This means that american onshoring can only be partially successful.
Retard. Almost any country in the world could build a nuclear program, the reason they don't is because no one wants to be cut off like the Koreans have been. Look at North Korea in the 50s and Korea now, its nuclear program has turned it into a comparative shithole. Non-dictorships can't try shit like that without getting rebellions. Also north Korea had a lot of help from both Russia and china with their rocketry program. (See any scientific paper co-authored by Chinese and Koreans, they're all surprisingly applicable to the design of ballistic missiles).
Droolingly retarded post.
Go look at what percentage of North Korea's economy is dedicated to the military, then consider that for that price they get... third rate missiles that are worse than what the West was employing circa the early 80s.
Yes if you want to make wartime tier expenditures you can make more complex stuff as a small nation. It'll only cost you your quality of living.
My post was written under the assumption that small nations would like to remain half decent places to live, or to become decent.
Does the US not have ballistic missiles or something?
are you just now noticing that the chart is comparing US rocket artillery to russian and chinese ballistic missiles?
You mean the thing I literally pointed out, you fucking idiot?
so you're confirming that yes, you just now noticed. cool.
Yes, I noticed when I looked at the picture. I guess I should have noticed before looking at it, but unfortunately I can't see into the future.
so you are confirming a propaganda chart made you question wether USA actually has any missiles beyond rocket artillery?
What do you think, you autistic retard?
>comparing artillery to ballistics missiles
MIC must think politicans are dumb as fuck and they are.
Because the US likes to hit what it’s aiming at
Ask yourself this, when has Russia or China EVER stated something about their weapons that actually turned out to be true?? Their weapons almost ALWAYS underperform, whilst U.S weapons do exactly as advertised.
>comparing a fucking ICBM to a GMLRS
holy shit morons are braindead but this one take the cake
also something something treaty against the proliferation of medium/intermediate range weapons that only white people respected because subhumans can't be trusted with treaties
Because the US focuses mostly on ICBMs and SLBMs these days, and not on forward-deployed IRBMs? And for the missions where Russia would use a conventional Kalibr, the US would use an air-launched JASSM or a sea-launched TLAM, neither of which is on this chart?
This is almost as bad as showing a chart with official SAM ranges and asking why the US Army has nothing like S-400.
We're not lying about our specs in an attempt to make the enemy overspend on R&D.
Similarly, we're "underestimating" maximum range to give a conservatively acceptable radius probability estimate.
tl;dr russia and chineez are liars
Because they can use their far superior air forces to deliver a far greater volume of ordinance in the form of plane-born bombs.
Why aren't Trident and Minuteman on the list?
they're not, you just picked a chart comparing rocket artillery and air launched missiles to ballistic ones