aviationanalysis.net
It's a ballistic missile launched from an aeroplane
Brody Martin
Other urls found in this thread:
russia-insider.com
reuters.com
foreignaffairs.com
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Jace Rivera
Funny how everybody (NATO less Turkey) is trying to pretend it doesn't exist so they don't have to explain their criminal behavior in Libya and Syria.
Michael Gray
Whatcha talkin' 'bout, Dakota ?
Julian Phillips
Adam Wood
I'm not gonna read it all, what does it have to do with Libya and why would they pretend it doesn't exist?
Nolan Peterson
Yay escalation! The future is looking BRIGHT indeed!
Jace Lopez
>It's a ballistic missile launched from an aeroplane.
Holy shit, as if that hadn't been done in 60's.
Blake Edwards
Carson Morris
What does the US do with its military since the collapse of the USSR?
Destabilize
Yugoslavia
Iraq
Ukraine
Syria
Libya
Afghanistan
Somalia
etc.
Everybody is sick of it and ready to start shooting back at a bunch of girly men that hide behind American teenagers with rifles.
Jordan Murphy
These weapons have existed for decades, and to what purpose? They do nothing that is not already accomplished by other weapons.
I believe these announcements by Putin are the gimmick for coming elections. The purpose to excite voters and maintain tough man image for Putin. Very important as US forces kill Russian forces with impunity during failed Russian offensive, and barrage allied air base with cruise missiles on the whim following alleged nerve gas attack by Assad. What can Russia do? Nothing but flex scrawny muscle. Like teenaged boy measuring his bicep and brag. It is sad.
Isaac Gonzalez
>Ukraine
Yeah no
Austin White
Strange. All of those country also had despotic Russia supported and armed government before US involved.
Ethan Long
>thread about russia
>asians are triggered
I thought you guys get along?
Kevin Ramirez
>literally 60's tier.
First SLAM and now Skybolt, about time the Russians caught up.
Samuel Stewart
What was despotic about Libya again? What's so great about (((Israel)))?
Cameron Clark
That probably what you guys said about governments in Korea, Phillipines and China before you learned the hard way how wrong you were. Still paying the price. Been to Okinawa much?
Cameron Harris
It'd have it uses, especially for prompt conventional attacks outside of bomb range and you don't have a cruise missile shooter nearby.
Justin Lewis
I observe fact. Announcement comes shortly before elections. Weapons are nothing new or revolutionary. Putin is reliant on cult of personality revolving about manly ness. The past 12 months have seen US repeatedly deflate the ego of Russia, to tarnish image of strength. Most recent is the failed attack on Kurdish oil refinery in Syria. Before and during attack, Russia was warned. Warning ignored and US made reminder why conventional attacks on US forces are very ill advised. What does Russian government respond? How does Putin respond?
Respond not like strong nation fighting with rival. Respond like shame, shame and wish for incident to be forgotten.
Alexander Reyes
Jackson Harris
funny how a Russian with a proxy can easily be detected
Cameron Bennett
>being this delusional
take off your proxy weeboo fag
Robert Harris
You're a retard if you think Japan needed a "they're despotic tyrants we need to free those countries people" doctrine for war. Imperial Japan was not spreading democracy. It was spreading Japanese rule over others.
Hunter Powell
lol this.
Jose Thomas
There is a great deal of reporting. Some say 100's dead, some say 5 or 10. The fact remains. US forces killed Russians forces during attack by Russians forces across agreed border.
foreignaffairs.com
No. That was conquest. At the time, all powerful country established colonies to feed industry with resources. Japan saw opportunity to become equal to western countries, instead of puppet or colony to be exploited like other Asian country.
James Nguyen
Russian mercenaries are not Russian forces.
The Russians killed many US operators in Georgia.
Easton Torres
Not russian forces but russian mercs
Angel Wilson
What is the difference? The carry Russians weapons, are paid by Russians government, their objective is to support policy of Russians government, they are treated in Russians hospitals for soldiers in Pskov and Petersburg. Yes? It is that same when US contractors is killed.
What US forces killed in Georgia? In 2008 war? I have not seen evidence of this. Do you have evidence? I am happy to read. This will be interesting.
Alexander Sullivan
gotta be 18 to post here.
Charles Taylor
>what is the difference?
>What is the difference between well-trained organized structure with air support and bunch of snowniggers with rusty AKs
Do you know what "cannon fodder" is?
Easton Russell
Iskander is quasi-ballistic missile, it can perform maneuvers on hypersonic speed.
That what made it so deadly.
Landon Cooper
>Yugoslavia
those were commies + US helped shit
Brandon Foster
neat, the USA did this in the 70s. There's literally no point to it.
John Wright
>when the missile is such a shit it needs a plane to take it
James Cox
why are poles such faggots?
Henry Stewart
wrong
no one has put maneuvrable hypersonic missile on the plane before
educate yourself
William Stewart
Alternate name for Russian soldier?
Thomas Thomas
>US forces killed Russians forces
correctly
>Russian mercenaries
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagner_Group
In the Russian legislation there is no article on private military companies. But there is a law on mercenaries, according to which this office is not legal.
This group is closely connected with the government and in reality it is ordinary soldiers on private wages.
Hudson Flores
Jesus christ you vatniks are retarded. Literally every ballistic missile ever is hyper-sonic and maneuverable.
Russia has yet to develop a missile faster than the Minuteman, a missile the USA fired off a plane in the 70s.
And why isn't the USA still using ballistic missiles fired off of planes despite being able to do so since the 1970s? Because it's fucking pointless, ballistic missiles can hit anyone on the planet if they were fired from Wyoming.
Carson Russell
Oh and only one country has fired a non-ballistic hypersonic, maneuverable missile. That would be the USA.
en.wikipedia.org
Carson Thompson
>Being this far behind
We even launched a fucking Minuteman ICBM out of the back of a C-5 cargo plane, just because we could. A 40 fucking ton rocket:
youtube.com
Tyler Jackson
Lmao you know those places were already under colonial control by the west right?
Julian Hill
>This group is closely connected with the government and in reality it is ordinary soldiers on private wages.
lmao retarded.
Austin Peterson
Poland loves the bumsex, it's why Russia keep taking it over, for that sweet sweet polish bumhole. Poland is literally butthurt, now it's had a little freedom, it wants to be the dominant partner. Pipe dreams, basically.
Also yeah, everyone ITT crying because Russia got a new toy. It'll become more relevant when the MiG-31 is replaced, project already in early design phase. Putin requested Mach 4+ for the new interceptor.
Luke Fisher
Russia doesn't have the ability/money to develop new fighters anymore. Let alone engines for them.
Juan Kelly
They didn't have the money for the Borei submarines, but as money isn't even real, after all, who cares? As long as people have Vodka and Bread, they'll work. Remind me what your national debt is again? It doesn't matter, one bit. Money. Isn't. Real.
Dominic Sullivan
>Borei submarines
Leftover soviet tech program that they finished up. Congrats.
Jaxson Rivera
>Cost was the issue you wanted to debate
Nice goalpost move there. Are you not aware of the program cost? Silly burger.
Zachary Reyes
You killed Gaddafi, Frenchies. You're responsible for Libya. To hell with you.
Andrew Martin
It was already paid for by the Soviet government. All the design work was done. And even then they fucked up, it can only carry liquid fueled rockets, making it less effective.
Logan Taylor
UK poster is new leaf.
Xavier Miller
>not just using the aircraft
Aaron Evans
MiG-31 is more of an interceptor than a fighter, and the MiG-25 is faster.
Adrian Lewis
What is the US equivalent?
Landon Myers
>Russia doesn't have the ability/money to develop new fighters anymore.
Why do you think Western soldiers will die for their children's rights to be a hated minority in their own countries?
Russia just need to survive a few more years, and the West will not be able to fight a life or death war at all, because we see no signs that white genocide will cease to be official American policy.
David Turner
theres none
Joseph Gomez
Britain is no longer a serious country, so why don't you just shut up?
Justin Gomez
Minuteman 3. They have a few hundred in silos all over the USA ready to fire at any minute. Maneuverable upon reentry and capable of Mach 23+
Easton Diaz
lol what? The USA has plenty of ballistic missile,
Benjamin Cook
And not a single quasibalistic anti-ship missile that can be launched from plane.
Connor Stewart
Actually yes. The X-51 waverider, which was tested years ago, and it's ballistic at all which makes it better.
Either way the USA has no mission for them. There isn't a real surface navy threat to the USA, so what's there to try and sink with one? And the US Navy already has anti-ship missiles that are more effective, so what's the point?
Russia did this test using a missile they already had that was ground based. Why? Because they can. They won't build a ton of them and they aren't really effective vs anything. If Russia fires a nuke at the US navy, the USA nukes most of Russia and vice versa. It's literally a pointless weapon.
Jordan Cook
*not ballistic
Oliver Rivera
X-51 is not ballistic, nor quasiballistic.
>US Navy already has anti-ship missiles that are more effective, so what's the point?
Like subsonic Harpoon, right?
Also, Kinzhal is not necessarily armed with nuclear warhead.
Joshua Morales
It's a friendly reminder to the USA to not chimp out with carriers in Syria. We can't defend against anything going mach 10. Combine these with the new Russian ECM weapons that fry electronics and make drones fall out of the sky and they do have an advantage that should make us think twice.
Oliver Adams
The faster something goes the less range it has, unless it's ballistic and then it becomes highly detectable and avoidable. Unless it's a nuke, and if it's a nuke then who fucking cares.
And that's the real problem with ballistic missiles, they are track able as fuck and they have to rely on satellite guidance, which means they can't hit moving targets. Their small on board radars are too weak to be effective vs any sort of jamming.
Sebastian Harris
Naw brah. this literally changes nothing, and yes. the USA can defend vs these things. They rely on satellite guidance because they are ballistic missiles which means they can't hit moving targets.
Jaxon Ramirez
The US has already worked on launching satellites from F-15s, decided it wasn't worth it. Look up ALASA.
Zachary Wilson
>Minuteman 3. They have a few hundred in silos all over the USA ready to fire at any minute. Maneuverable upon reentry and capable of Mach 23+
And we've launched these 40 ton beasts out the back of c5 cargo planes even:
Nicholas Cook
I do not have a spork. It is interesting but unnecessary capability.