why are american missiles shit ?

>>32782095
Different doctrines. Next retarded question?

Very bright, loud and fast isn't always the best bet, and that's to say nothing about the doctrinal differences.

Why do you people keep asking these dumb questions?

>tomahawk
1700km range
450kg warhead

>granit
625km range
750kg warhead

>oniks
600km range
250kg warhead

>brahmos
300km range
200kg warhead

>>32782234
Oh snap

>>32782234
I'm still amazed by the tomahawk's range given the payload. Combine that with auto guiding, nap of the earth flying and it's still such an impressive weapon all these years later.

we don't need to shoot skyliners down and murder hundreds of civilians, that's why

>>32782234
You forgot to add weights of those missiles.

Because ours actually hit their targets.

>>32782234
>Kalibr
2500 km range
500 kg or nuclear

>>32782095
We like to hit what we are shooting at. Russian missles are unreliable in that regard.
http://defensenews-alert.blogspot.com/2016/12/as-nirbhay-missile-project-is-mostly.html?m=1

>>32782350
actually the US has done so with the SM2 which is very short range but much faster than any current russian SAM
that said yes the US can and should step up its game in missile technology

>>32782436
Also
0.8-2.5-2.9 mach

>>32782436
That range is all subsonic.

>>32782449
>US can and should step up its game in missile technology

It's already well ahead of Russia and China.

https://www.scribd.com/document/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

This should be mandatory reading for every single one of these threads.

>>32782473
Naturally, but that applies for the Tomahawk to, difference is that it can increase the speed during final approach

>>32782468
Only the AshM has a subsonic sprint. Maybe a land attack version too.

Both have significantly reduced range.

Keep in mind the US has developed sea skimming mach 4 capable missiles.

It's a question of want, not ability.

>>32782486
Not with that range.

Look up the variants. Kalibr is not a unitary missile

>>32782436
>~50% larger missile
>only ~25% more range

>>32782483
for instance we do not have a functional hypersonic missile while the eastern alliance has them
there is no reason we are so behind on technology given our huge spending budget other than vast corruption in the military industry

>>32782567
https://www.scribd.com/document/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

Read it you fuckwit. The physics the masses required haven't changed a bit.

>>32782567
We sure as fuck do anon

>>32782436
You should look at cost per unit.

There's a reason the Russians only make a few lol

>>32782587
fuck you its from 1997. i'm talking about current missile technology not 20 year old alogrithyms
they beat us on every technological stage. they've been dedicating their research to extended range, payload, and aeuronautics while we've been just spamming decades old missiles with upgrades.

>>32782649
Physics don't change. Super/hypersonic missiles have to make huge tradeoffs for their speed. It's not that the US is incapable of making them, just not particularly interested.

>>32782095
Boeing X-51 WaveRider
180kg warhead
Range: 740 km
Speed:Mach 5.1
BrahMos
200 kg warhead
Speed:Mach 2.8-3
Range:290-300 km
The problem is not having shitty missiles but the american political system,various projects have been abandoned by stupid politicians that do not know a thing or two about technology and its effects,the US is better than Russia in any category regarding military.

>>32782679
the difference between the missiles you referenced is that the brahmos actually exists as a deployed missile system while the x-51 has had so many test failures it has been scrapped

>>32782763
wat

>>32782331
That's because it's slow. Much more fuel efficient.

>>32782763
elaborate please.

>>32782646
The tomahawk isnt really cheap either.

>>32783050
>>32783192
How much more succinct and to the point can I state that the United States does not have a hypersonic missile system?

>>32783346

Will you call yourself a bottom bitch dirty fuccboi if you are wrong?

File: Chinese_Hypersonic_Gliding_Vehicle.jpg (185KB, 720x667px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 720x667px

>>32783360
KEK. The Russians, Chinese, and Indians literally have missiles which travel at greater than mach 5 while NATO have blueprints for such a missile being deployed in 2025.

>>327826
300km is a lock for export models.

What the hell even exists to fire said missiles at? Why waste money on expensive high performance AShMs when we have strike fighters out the ass?

>>32783196
$800,000 per back when they were developed.

>>32783427
I say again, will you call yourself a bottom bitch dirty fuccboi if you are wrong?

>>32783484
super/hypersonic mrbms can knock out a carrier or hangar before it can launch it's strike fighters for instance. the first stage of a modern war would be the attack and counter attack of cruise missiles. therefore whoever can develop faster, larger, longer range missiles in quantity probably will be victorious

>>32783574
I say again. You cannot name a single hyper sonic medium range ballistic missile within the NATO inventory because it does not exist. Suck a dick you 4chink shitposting faggot.

>>32783346
>why don't the US develop supersonics/hypersonics like the russkies ?
this was OPs question,i answered it,the question was not about the US having hypersonic missiles,i know they don't.

>>32783427
wrong.

>>32782095
They tend to explode when they hit something.

>>32783624

>medium range ballistic missile
>Ballistic

And the goal posts start a movin

>>32782649
https://www.scribd.com/document/267396243/Naval-Engineers-Journal-Volume-109-Issue-1-1997-J-F-McEachron-Subsonic-and-Supersonic-Antiship-Missiles-An-Effectiveness-and-Utility-Comparison

Read it.

>>32783829
read it.good stuff.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (64KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1280x720px

>>32782095
This SuperBug carries 4 AShMs.
Let me see how many Granits you can fit under a plane.
There is also the fact that russia has no ships warranting more than the harpoon.
One flight of 12 F/A-18E can shit out 48 fucking missiles, more than enough to get past any missile defense any russian fleet can put up.
One super carrier can put up three such flights and still allocate a dozen planes more to air superiority and CAP.

>>32783829
>1997
Dismissed

>>32783650
Please learn proper punctuation and lose the name before posting. This goes for all the other threads you're in as well.

>>32784816
no.

>>32783726
wtf did you think we are talking about you stupid faggot?
everyone has had mach 10+ abm and icbms since the 80s. this conversation is of course specifically directed at anti-ship or land attack mrbms

>>32782095
>>32783588
The US isn't interested in spending lots of money on weapon systems that are only useful in a suicidal surprise attack on itself.

The US is pursuing smarter stealthier missiles instead.

>>32784423
The last of physics didn't change in the last 20 years.

>>32785272
Laws, sorry.

>>32784965
> this conversation is of course specifically directed at anti-ship or land attack mrbms

It never was.

Neither was this thread.

>>32785272
neither has US missile technology
apparently, russia, china, and india have better comprehension on the laws of physics if that is the only thing you think mitigates superior missile designs which we do not possess

>>32785286
well if you go up the thread you'll see this particular conversation began as a comparison to the brahmos missile and the experimental x-51.
both of which are medium range ballistic missiles. one of which doesn't exist as a deployed system.

>>32785354
Neither of those are ballistic missiles you cretin

>>32782095
What is a railgun? You now have my permission to kill yourself.

>>32783560
2014 Block IV Tomahawks are $1.5 million a pop.

>>32785157
US is researching hypersonics as well. HAWC and TBG.

>>32785491
US HAS a credible hypersonic weapon. Hit a target and everything.

I'll let you know what it is, but he has to super pinky promise to call himself a little dirty bottom bitch.

>>32785298
Why can't Russia, China and India into modern technology like >>32783909 ?

File: 949a with 3m45 p-700 granit.jpg (303KB, 814x570px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 814x570px

>>32784071
>Let me see how many Granits you can fit under a plane.
What for, if you can fit them in a submarine and rekt the carrier and all its planes before they ever see you.

File: russia usa the main difference asm.png (130KB, 1216x1037px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 1216x1037px

Oh look, it's this thread again. So let the shitposting commence.

>>32785577

You will need more than 9

>>32785523
>What the fuck is Kalibr?

>>32785585
>mfw the chart clearly shows Russia coming to its senses with the x-35, a modernized tomahawk.

>mfw they left out JASSM-ER and SLAM-ER

>>32785605
Garbo

>>32785589
More than 9 of what? Each submarine carries 24 Granits and there's an undergoing modernisation to fit them with 72 Onyx/Kalibr instead.

>>32785605
Not stealth, not smart

>>32785606
>x-35, a modernized tomahawk
Read a book, dumbass.
>JASSM-ER and SLAM-ER
It's a list of anti-ship missiles from wiki, it misses out stuff like Kh-22 too for some reason.

File: lol01.jpg (32KB, 512x341px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 512x341px

>russia and chinas navies are so shit tier that nobody else has even considered the need for upgrading from shitty subsonic harpoons and exocets

>>32785510
I will be a little dirty bottom bitch for those details anon

>>32785643
Yeah I'm tired, meant harpoon fucboi

>>32785624
>American missiles
>Smart
Top fucking kek, call me back when you will have real time satellite and smart swarm guidance, i.e. catch up on 70s USSR ASCM technology level.

>>32785654
FIIIINNNNNEEE

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/advanced-hypersonic-weapon-ahw/

Being that your not him, I won't hand feed you. It's all there. Test it's what the Chinese want the WU-14 to end up being, but better due to a completely non BM trajectory, no atmo skipping bs for maneuvers.

File: ka-27 launching kh-35.jpg (128KB, 1284x1041px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1284x1041px

>>32785660
Harpoon is in development since early 80s, but yeah, you are correct, they realised not all targets require an expensive 3/4 tonne warhead on a supersonic missile.

>>32785690
>Kh-35 is in development since early 80s
Damn it. Fixed.

>>32785665

>muh pop up "SHOOT ME" missile is "swarm Tech"

Zozzle

>>32785704
Well well well, who needs to read a book now, dumbass :^]

File: su-33 with kh-41.jpg (108KB, 1805x1239px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1805x1239px

>>32785723
>American salt

>>32785523
IN DEVELOPMENT NOT DEPLOYED
the eastern nations already have deployed hypersonic (which this missile is not) sea skimming medium range anti-ship missiles

File: detailed briefing, comrade colonel.jpg (239KB, 1179x786px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1179x786px

>>32785729
I fixed myself, you did not :^)

>>32785748
>the eastern nations already have deployed hypersonic (which this missile is not) sea skimming medium range anti-ship missiles

Wrong

>>32785689
1 actual Kh-90 GELA vs. your AHW blueprints
who wins?

>>32785746
>salty over Russian halriously over sized missiles

Nope.

>>32784071

Do carriers even carry 48 Harpoons?

Not on the Slav side here, just curious about the actual munitions logistics.

File: kh-22m.jpg (241KB, 800x583px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 800x583px

>>32785802
Russia has a hypersonic top attack air-launched anti-ship missile since 1974 tho.

File: vatnik delusions.jpg (61KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 531x640px

>>32785746

>>32785689
That's a sexy weapon. But how does it use nitrogen as a fuel?

File: scientific american.png (361KB, 400x528px) Image search: [Google]

361KB, 400x528px

>>32785816
>Salty over your country struggling to catch up on 40 years old Soviet technology
Sounds like you!

>>32785822
Kh-22 ain't mach 5.

>>32785827
Initial sonic booster. It's a glide weapon

File: отвлекающая-операция-сало.jpg (164KB, 600x795px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 600x795px

>>32785823

>>32785859
Kh-22M is.

>>32785827
not at all, someone fucked up. It probably uses nitrogen for cold gas attitude control thrusters but i don't see why a missile like that would need those to begin with

>>32785868
Kh-22 and 32 reach approx mach 5. Not mach 5.

Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

>>32785827
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinitrogen_tetroxide#Use_as_a_rocket_propellant
I suppose this?

File: X-51A_Waverider.jpg (788KB, 2100x1763px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 2100x1763px

This image is literally some supposed hypersonic missile in development at the pentagon. Meanwhile Russia and China have hundreds of missiles which would turn our carriers into mockups of the deepsea horizon rig faster than 5 times the speed American sailors could scream "Holy shit" all over the Atlantic and Pacific.

And you can't handle that fact without being a sperg retyping "wrong" and posting links to hypothetical future weapons.

>>32785878
Don't be silly, the main spaceshuttle Solid boosters used pressurized nitrogen.

>>32785913
Wrong.

Not only is that not the ahw, the AHW actually hit a target unlike Chinese junk.

>>32783346
Are you retarded? Or just completely ignoring the Minuteman System.

>>32785859
that doesn't sound realistic at all. Cold gas thrusters have absolutely absymal specific impulses. No one uses that to propel significant masses to higher speeds.

>>32785910
i doubt it. We switched from nasty stuff like N2O4, IRFNA (and hydrazine, UDMH) to solid propellants for a reason. Stuff like that is a bitch to handle. Even the russians don't want to use it anymore.

>>32785916
for what? Definetly not as fuel, the Space shuttle SRBs used APCP, ammonium perchlorate, aluminium powder and PBAN as binder.

>>32786004
Used it to keep the fuel system chooching.

It might actually be some kind of nitrous fuel. The glider needs a fuckton of speed fast.

>>32785479
800,000 USD in 1983's money is equivalent to 1.9 million USD today.

So in real terms it's gotten cheaper, using 1983 as a basis.

>>32786047
Cool

Wish it was cheaper still.

>>32786031
I'm really certain that no new military US missile system uses N2O4, IRFNA or any other nitrogen based substance as monopropellant or oxidizer. At least not as fuel to bring something heavy to speed. This stuff is just a bitch to deal with, solid fuels can be stored easier, safer and longer and are cheaper.

>>32786075
> or any other nitrogen based substance
Screw that, that's way to exclusive. nitric acid and ammonia salts are obviously used in solid propellants. I mean all the liquid/gaseous nitrogen oxides and nitric acid.

>>32782095
>why are american missiles shit ?
>posts the most successful, most produced, most used cruise missile in history

>>32785605
>What the fuck is Kalibr?

Russia finally making a Tomahawk analogue, lacking in stealth and EW that makes the LRASM harder to intercept than missiles that rely on raw speed.

>>32786108
>most used
>against lybian T34s and gadaffis palace

File: hgb.png (77KB, 1211x432px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1211x432px

>>32785827
just pressurized gas

File: 1484687305878.png (120KB, 520x357px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 520x357px

vatnik thread, saged

>>32786175
Vatniks in charge of history lessons.

>>32786175
implying the target matters. It would fuck up any armored column or military building.

>>32786143
>stealth
Russia has stealth missiles, like the Kh-101
>EW
EW on missiles is 1970s tech for Russia

>>32785354
>both of which are medium range ballistic missiles

>The BrahMos (Hindi: ब्रह्मोस brahmos, Russian: Бpaмoc) is a short-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile

>>32786143
>Russia finally making a Tomahawk analogue
>What the fuck is Kh-55?
Tomahawk is an analogue.
>American missiles
>Smart
Top fucking kek, call me back when you will have real time satellite and smart swarm guidance, i.e. catch up on 70s USSR ASCM technology level.

>>32786217
EW is now dominated by the processing ability of microelectronics. Where Russia is fundamentally, unarguably, behind.

>>32786143
>finally making
Kalibr dates back to 1990, dumbass.

>>32786224
>Implying the US doesn't have the best datalink capability
>Implying "smart swarm guidance" is one missile popping up over the horizon to track targets

>>32786232
>Where Russia is fundamentally, unarguably, behind.
Maybe, in being restricted to jamming towelheads' walkie-talkies.

>>32786248
>Implying the US is not struggling to catch up on 70s USSR ASCM technology level
American salt.

>>32786185
>3 pounds of pressurized nitrogen
>200+ pounds in electrical equipment alone
>somehow this is supposed to go super/hypersonic
someone fucked up. 3 pounds of pressurized nitrogen wouldn't get that thing 50ft in the air. The nitrogen is probably for cold gas attitude control thrusters.

>>32786232
That doesn't make any sense, US micro electronics was less advanced 30 years ago, that doesn't mean EW didn't exist.
So if the USSR had missiles with jammers and threat computers in the 1970s (P-500, Kh-22), it doesn't count as EW because...

>>32786261
That's exactly what I'm implying, actually. That the US is far ahead of Russia and has been for the longest time.

>>32786280
Spoken as someone who truly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Lovely Vatnik troll thread, see you on page 10

>>32786241
Wouldn't Kh-55 and RK-55 be a Tomahawk analogue from the early 1980s.

>>32786280
EW changed. Just jamming one narrow frequency band is something you can do with tube electronics. Trying to jam something that jumps through different frequencys and changes encryption patterns or whatever like a cat on speed is harder. Nowadays just knowing what frequency the systems you're trying to jam use isn't enough anymore, you need real time analysis of how the target system is communicating to direct your limited jamming capabilities to the place where it will hurt most.

>>32786284
Then you are wrong, since it is only now that Americans are attempting to implement features present on 70s Soviet ASCMs. And even then, real time satellite guidance is still space magic to you.

>>32786311
>Spoken as someone who truly doesn't know what they're talking about.
If you do, explain it,

>>32786314
I'm pretty sure "finally making" refers to Kalibr. But yeah, I already mentioned Kh-55 that appeared before Tomahawk.

>>32786317
That's why Americans shit their pants over the possibility of Russians jamming GPS signals?

>>32786317
>EW changed
So did Russian missiles. Oniks, Uran, Kh-555, ect.
Look at the original post jackasses.
It was comparing a Russian Tomohawk equivalent to the LRASM for some reason, as if it was some sort of game changer because it was stealth (like recent Russian equivalents) and EW (like the ancient Russian equivalents).

>>32786338
Kh-55 isn't really an analogue given it is air launch only.

>>32786323
>Real time satellite guidance

Sounds a lot like a datalink. Which the US has had on aircraft since the 50s and on missiles since the 70s.

>Only now that Americans are attempting to implement features present on 70s Soviet ASCMs

Like? The Naval Strike Missile and LRASM are both subsonic, sea-skimming, stealthy missiles with datalinks and internal guidance. They are not supersonic, they are not intended to take a nuclear warhead, and they are by no means unsophisticated technologically.

Do you just actually believe the US can't make a fast missile?

>>32786358
It is not, since it is Tomahawk that is an analogue. They tried to make Tomahawk air-launched. Didn't work.

>>32786356
i don't want to join the circlejerk, just throwing in some info of how modern microelectronics change EW.

>>32786366
Real time satellite guidance sounds like real time satellite guidance. Good luck catching up on that.
>Like?
Like having operational borderline sea-skimming supersonic missiles with EW capabilities and smart swarm data-link with mid-course updates provided directly by a satellite in real time.

>>32786241
>entered service in the last decade
>dates back 30 years

Neat.

>>32786427
>Wtf is the fall of the USSR?
Harpoon dates back to the 70s.

>>32786450
>non sequitur

neat

>>32786425
From the wiki on the Kh-55:
>...hit fixed targets using a pre-downloaded digital map for terrain following and GLONASS/INS for trajectory correction to achieve accuracy of 6-10 meters

Getting course corrections via satellite is not guidance, retard. The US has had datalinks since the 50s, and none of your shitposting will change that.

>>32786425
This is like saying an Atari is more capable than a Playstation 4.

>>32786470
>Keeps getting rekt
Neat.
>>32786477
In has nothing to do with Kh-55, retard, it's a subsonic land attack cruise missile from the 80s. Americans are still struggling to catch up on the 70s Soviet ASCM and none of your shitposting will change that.
>>32786496
No, this is like saying that the features Americans are trying to implement nowadays were present on Soviet missiles since 70s.

>>32782436

> Austistic name like Tumblr and Flickr

>>32787432
>Keeps making claims of "US struggling to catch up to 70s Soviet AShMs"
>No proof

Anyways, I posted the relevant bit about the Kh-55 because I couldn't find any reference to "real time satellite guidance" for the Kitchen missile (a Kh-22 to you), and nothing about "smart swarm guidance" beyond a spotter missile flying above the others.

>>32787613
>I couldn't find
So you're not just incapable of handling banter, you're also an ignoramus that can't google?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legenda_(satellite_system)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-500_Bazalt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-700_Granit
>No proof
Show me an operational American missile with EW capabilities and smart swarm data-link with mid-course updates provided directly by a satellite in real time. In the 70s.

>>32782763
>>32782679
The X-51 didn't have any warhead - the X stands for eXperimental; it was a tech demo with only 3 flight tests ever planned. What you're looking for is High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW), which is meant to enter service within the next decade.

>>32787753
Okay you win. You can have Poland now.

>>32785748
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

File: pCSBxm2.png (588KB, 1252x7385px) Image search: [Google]

588KB, 1252x7385px

>>32787809

>>32787862
The funny thing is people arguing over theoretical missile performance on a namibian disco meet like it will actually matter.

>>32787833
>What the fuck is Kh-101?

>>32787927
It's a platinum shitposting thread. Why not banter?

>>32787950
At this point it seems like we're just going around in circles. Waiting for a real war sucks enough already.

>west lacks sanic missiles lol you shit
>your missiles lack X Y and Z
>no you are behind
>lolno we have X Y and Z you have potato

>>32782350
Well, we still do that, but we don't deny it happened.

>>32784423
>>32782649
What is so hard to understand about the tradeoffs of an engine capable of much higher thrust? Fuck off, China Chang.

>>32784816
This is the smartest thing I've read on 4chan all day.

>>32787753
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legenda_(satellite_system)

>Legenda is now believed to be non-functional after the US-A sats were deactivated.

Are you really this dumb?

>>32785577
>Russian subs
>Not the loudest thing in the ocean since Krakatoa fell in

>>32788246
>It was decommissioned, therefore it never existed
>What the fuck is Liana satellite system?
Are you?

>>32788343
>>What the fuck is Liana satellite system?
A "system" of one ELINT satellite which does not have active radar? A cool project which is incredibly behind schedule and likely never to be completed?

File: american carrier seen from russian nuclear sub.jpg (83KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x525px

>>32788249
Sound? How XX century of you. Americans are even more easy to trace. You see, the thing is they're more salty than ocean water.

>>32788397
>The constellation in under construction, therefore it does not exist
There is no need to be upset.

>>32788402
Now do it again when it's not at sea trials without it's CSG. Be careful so your reactor doesn't fall apart.

>>32788402
Carriers aren't designed to be stealthy...

File: kursk wreck in drydock.jpg (92KB, 600x386px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 600x386px

>>32788402

>>32783560

>America actually spends a million dollars for a missile strike against a Toyota technical

Holy shit.

And now someone fucked up LRLAP munitions!

Just kill me :(

>>32788476
https://in.rbth.com/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041
Sorry, if we do it once more I am afraid you will start to develop psychological complexes, not just excrete salt on an industrial scale as you do now.
>>32788481
Sucks to be them when shit hits the fan, I guess.

>>32788600
Well, considering they are surrounded by DDG's, CGs, and SSNs they're probably the best place to be when shit hits the fan.

>>32788624
That could probably be true if the enemy had carriers with planes carrying subsonic petards, not submarines with supersonic missiles that will rekt the carrier with all its planes before it even knows.

>>32788653
Its surrounded by Burke's, if you've got SSM's headed your way there's no safer place to be.

>>32788653
>He doesn't realize that SSNs always accompany a CSG to sea

Also what is ASW

>>32788597
You shouldn't talk about things when your knowledge only consists of the headlines from clickbait.

>>32785272
No but the improvement of layered anti-missile defense in the meantime may very well make those slow ass things downright obsolete 20 years after the publication. Before lashing out at me plese keep in mind I have absolutely no opinion on the matter. I simply don't know enough about it.

>>32782487
Any link to this?

>>32784071
>One flight of 12 F/A-18E can shit out 48 fucking missiles, more than enough to get past any missile defense any russian fleet can put up.

And how about a current or near-term chinese fleet?

File: 1470619835133.jpg (326KB, 1774x1036px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1774x1036px

>>32782095
American missiles are designed to hunt primitive people.
Russian missiles are designed to hunt Americans.

File: 1363210596944.png (68KB, 253x235px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 253x235px

>>32788839
>primitive people

So, Russians?

>>32788679
"Surrounded by Burkes" as in "is escorted by a couple". The amount of missiles a submarine carries is enough to get past any missile defence any American CSG can put up.
>>32788683
>Wtf is an ASCM?
>>32788780
Didn't know news.usni.org is a clickbait resource.
https://news.usni.org/2016/11/07/navy-planning-not-buying-lrlap-rounds

>>32788839
Since you obviously can't bother to read things yourself, the breakthrough was a new way of making prototypes, not an actual reactor.

File: muhscenario march11.jpg (231KB, 1000x1330px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1000x1330px

>>32788834
>And how about a current or near-term chinese fleet?

Courtesy of a my scenario stands thread.

But does the missile know where it is?

>>32788921
Thanks!

>>32788885
>"Surrounded by Burkes" as in "is escorted by a couple". The amount of missiles a submarine carries is enough to get past any missile defence any American CSG can put up.

A Burke carries 96 SM-2s plus Sea Sparrows and CIWS.

A Tico carries 120 some SM-2s plus, again, Sea Sparrows and CIWS.

How many ASMs does an Oscar carry?

File: 1440140368434.jpg (56KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 604x453px

>>32788885
>The amount of missiles a submarine carries is enough to get past any missile defence any American CSG can put up.

This is a fine example of dunning kruger.

>Didn't know news.usni.org is a clickbait resource.

Your linked article references a clickbait article from DefenseNews written by someone who doesn't know how to read budget requests.

>>32788921
>>32788932

Additional questions, if you don't mind, would a Type 055 on the PLA side have changed the outcome? Or a radar plane in the air?

>>32788935
>A Burke carries 96 SM-2
>A Tico carries 120 some SM-2
Nice air defence "escort". Russians don't even have to worry about it, since there is virtually nothing such a composition can do against its forces stomping on Americans in Ramstein. No, they do not carry "96 SM-2 and 120 some SM-2". They usually don't even carry full missile load. And too bad neither of these you mentioned can intercept a salvo of manoeuvring supersonic data-linked missiles anyway.

File: 1477927369414.gif (1MB, 425x436px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 425x436px

>>32788981
>LIES! LIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEESSS!
Lol.

>>32788910
well now anon, when your job is shitposting on 4chan for 18 hours a day, you don't have much time for pesky things like reading

RIDF pls go and stay go

File: SLAVICHU.png (2MB, 808x1050px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 808x1050px

Oh boy I sure can't wait to have serious discussion about ships!

>>32788885
Having Burke's around you does mean surrounded. That and it would have to avoid the SSNs and ASW patrols. Also a Burke have between 90 and 96 VLS cells depending on the flight. That and the Russians only have one modern SSGN. I don't know which subs you are talking about, but most of Russia's subs have been outdated for at least ten years.

File: Coyote Drone.jpg (178KB, 990x1024px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 990x1024px

>>32782095
Because the US has extensively tested supersonic missiles using their own supersonic Target drones and have determined that they're shit.

They're so loud and hot and kick up so much steaming hot exhaust that any advantage you gain against the enemy's defences by minimising their reaction time is lost by virtue of being easier to see.

This is why the Us chose to develop a stealthy ASHM instead of a fast ASHM.

>>32789010
>>32789022
> No, they do not carry "96 SM-2 and 120 some SM-2". They usually don't even carry full missile load.

Yeah, you're wrong. While they may not dedicate all of their VLS cells to carrying SM-2s, they'll still be carrying a shit ton of them

>And too bad neither of these you mentioned can intercept a salvo of manoeuvring supersonic data-linked missiles anyway.

Sure, Yevgeny. Sure.

One potato has been dropped into your vatnik bucket.

>>32789064

> fatniks can't hit shit with missiles
> they're shit

ayy

>>32789010
>They usually don't even carry full missile load.
In peacetime. People start shooting, they get more missiles. common sense brah

>manoeuvring
lol great waste of fuel and now it takes longer to get to its target great job mate. like rolling stone running serpentine
>supersonic
gr8 job m8 now you just lit yourself up so hard we can see you from a mile away makes our job easier
>data-linked
if the russian claim is true, this is probably the only good thing going for them


also sm-6 masterrace

>>32789064

> being easier to see

the time between you "seeing" a hypersonic missile on the horizon and it hitting you, is a couple of seconds, you utter imbecile

>>32789104
we can have an E-2 or F-35 on radar picket for OTH detection. behold the wonders of navy datalinks

>>32789090
>>32789104

I suspect that the same vatnik is behind these posts.

I have a feeling that half the time the only people who post this type of damage control aren't even american, but some asshurt eastern europeans who can't deal with Russia being better than them.

It's a well known fact that Russian missile tech is the best in the world, and as far as ASM goes (don't know why OP is comparing tomahawks to ASM, prolly for ez-bait) they're at least 2 decades ahead of America.

>>32789104
He wasn't talking about the mk-1 eyeball, you moron.

>>32789121

Didn't have shit when some Iraqis blew the fuck out of that destroyer with some decrepit Exocets.

Oh wait, what's the designated damage control for that event? The radars were turned off right? lmao

>>32789154
That was an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate.

>>32788441
With a lifetime of three years, those satellites will never be a constellation on the current launch schedule.

>>32789154
If you meant Stark, i dont think we had it with a carrier which means no E-2 support. also this was the 1980 i dont think the tech has stayed static

>>32786346
The US used GPS guided bomb to destroy Russian made GPS jamming equipment while kicking Saddam's ass.

>>32789169

And it was hit by a missile designed in the 60s.

In general it was a great display of american incompetence and how utterly useless CIWS is.

>>32789169
>>32789184

And no AEGIS and SPY-1

>>32789193

> Saddam
> Russian tech

weak bait

>>32789104
If you're throwing up a screaming hot plume of ramjet exhaust and compressive heating wake, then you'll see the missile on IR long before it breaches the horizon.

>>32789195
>In general it was a great display of american incompetence and how utterly useless CIWS is.

>Captain Brindel suspected a possible Exocet attack but did not convey this clearly to the crew. He calmly requested a systems check including whether the Phalanx Close-In-Weapon-System (CIWS) system was "live". The crew reported no issue, he questioned again, however the crew repeated themselves believing he had simply not heard their first reply. Additionally due to miscommunication, the Captain believed the CIWS was "live" which to his mind meant; set to auto-targeting mode, but the crew were just reporting it was reading as operational (The CIWS was likely set to a passive mode waiting on the EMS.) Reassured falsely in the state of the ship, no further orders or evasive action was taken.

>>32789154
>>32789195
Missile defences were turned off. I know the defences work because two American warships were attacked off of yemen and there was not a single hit.

>>32789052
Having a couple escorts doesn't mean surrounded with destroyers. Destroyers that neither ever carry a full SAM load, not full missile load at all.
>That and the Russians only have one modern SSGN
Americans don't operate even a single one by this logic.
>most of Russia's subs have been outdated for at least ten years.
Coming from a country that operates fucking Los Angeles and Ohio, lol.
>it would have to avoid the SSNs and ASW patrols
>Wtf is an ASCM?
>>32789064
>A drone is the same as a missile
Bitch, please, that's a nice back-engineered Kh-31 you got there.
>>32789066
So I am right then, as you admit.
>Sure, Yevgeny. Sure.
Good that you agree useless amerishit is only good in shooting at Iranian frigates.

>>32789211

Listen kiddo. You can't and don't have a way to deal with russki missile spam. It's a fucking open and shut case.

It will always be cheaper and more effective to launch 30 missiles per ship.

>>32789195
The missile was produced in 1974, the Oliver Hazard Perry was produced 1975.

File: 1356719123881.gif (870KB, 221x174px) Image search: [Google]

870KB, 221x174px

>>32785644
I know, it's pretty pathetic

>>32788402
>WWII photo
>russian sub

lel

>>32789214
>>32789223

Do you understand what incompetence is? Because you're describing it right now. Then again, perhaps "inept" IS the better word. Americans are inept. Yeah that sounds better.

>>32789229
>Standard missile loadout for a Ticonderoga cruiser is 80 SM-2 SAMs, 16 ASROC anti-submarine rockets, and 26 Tomahawk cruise missiles.
From this: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3691-comparison-russian-navy-slava-class-and-us-navy-ticonderoga-class-cruisers-in-combat.html

You're still wrong. 80 missiles is plenty.

>Good that you agree useless amerishit is only good in shooting at Iranian frigates.

I was being sarcastic and dismissive of your claims, you dullard.

>>32789092
They will be feeding fish by the time it will be time to "get more missiles".
>manoeuvring
>waste of fuel
Oh must be a reason every AShM nowadays is manoeuvring.
>subsonic petard
Great job missing a target and getting intercepted by any SAM and CIWS.
>>32789092
>sm-6 masterrace
>Unit cost US$3.5-4 million
>masterrace
Lol.

>>32789255
One only has to look to the Russian Northern Fleet for several lifetimes worth of slapstick incompetence.

>>32789255
>Americans are inept

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sunken_nuclear_submarines#Soviet_Union

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lost_Russian_or_Soviet_submarines#After_the_Great_Patriotic_War

>>32789175
>a lifetime of three years
You didn't even try. Try again.

>>32789255
>not at war with Iraq
>see an Iraqi plane
>request ID
>surprise m8 have a missile

are you saying to shoot any plane down that looks funny to you? cause thats how you get a Vincennes

>>32785577
>Russia's yanking the Grantis off their Kirovs and replacing them with launch tubes for 80 odd Kalibrs
>dumb fuck vatniks keep on jerking off to muh subsonics anyway

why

sir I implore you I am honestly asking

WHY

File: 1485435243238.jpg (53KB, 960x636px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x636px

>>32789282

At least russians can operate in the arctic, which is why you're damage controlling about their "incompetence" right now.

>>32789285

What?

You wanna post some wiki articles about the russian army from the 1600s too maybe?

They've just had 2 very clean ops in Syria and Crimea, meanwhile America has done what in the last 20 years exactly?

>>32789269
>Oh must be a reason every AShM nowadays is manoeuvring.

check those missiles again. if theyre manuevering, theyre probably subsonic. only retard countries build supersonic maneuvering

File: american soldier1.jpg (43KB, 358x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 358x480px

>>32789257
>THEY CARRY FULL SAM LOAD
>No, they don't
>SEE, THEY DON'T, YOU ARE WRONG
Lol.

>>32789322
>They've just had 2 very clean ops in Syria

>lost >10% of their carrier air wing to incompetence in less than a month

File: I bet the ukranians did this.jpg (152KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 800x599px

>>32789322
The United States never had trouble in the arctic.
How about an example from the 2000s?

>>32789322
If you want to talk about ineptitude, the fact that you Russkies have lost so many damn subs is fair game.

>>32789328

> we can't make it, so no-one else can

it's pretty hilarious how this mentality has permeated so deep

I bet you'd be surprised that Russians are more innovative with drones as well

>>32789269
also,

>They will be feeding fish by the time it will be time to "get more missiles".

nah m8 doesnt take long to reload in the grand scale of things. once upon a time we could even reload missiles underway

>>32789229
>Americans don't operate even a single one by this logic.

The US Navy operates 3 sea wolf class SSNs and 13 Virginia class SSNs.

>Coming from a country that operates fucking Los Angeles and Ohio, lol.

Take a look at the list of active Russian subs, only a handful were made after the fall of Soviet Union. Only 3 new designs, one of which, the lada class, is regarded rather poorly.

The Russian navy is a shadow of what it once was, or rather it essentially is what it once was because they can't afford to retire anything.

>>32789309
Kalibr is supersonic, imbecile. And so is Onyx that fits to UKSK cells.
>>32789328
The fox and the grapes as it is, lol.

>>32789333
You are wrong that, somehow, 80 missiles is not enough to shoot down 24 ASMs. And Ticos can carry a full load of SM-2s.

>>32788910
Neither Russia nor America demonstrated a reactor. The point is that both stories are propaganda pieces, the American story was put out to counter the Russian story.

>>32789353
no im serious, if it is so good to have and the US cant make it, they would at least make a good effort to try, not unlike the indifference we see in the Navy

File: 1485435468017.jpg (53KB, 960x581px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 960x581px

>>32789341

> americans don't lose planes from carriers

You see I could go and look up the stats, but I can't really be bothered, my asshole is doing just fine and is not at all inflamed or anything.

>>32789345

You "never had trouble", because you have no presence there.

>>32789358
Doesn't take long to send a CSG to the bottom of the ocean too, at least if you have SSGNs armed with Granit, Onyx and Kalibr missiles.

>>32789322
>They've just had 2 very clean ops in Syria and Crimea

Carrier had to have all its planes ashore after sustaining unacceptable losses in accidents.

File: 1245347791607.jpg (81KB, 300x313px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 300x313px

>>32789378
show me a single US, UK or French carrier operation within the past twenty years where they lost over 10% of their air wing due to incompetence and shit tier maintenance

>>32789378
>>32789383
Are you being given potatoes hourly for this?

>>32789363
Uh oh, too bad neither of these are SSGNs.
>Take a look at the list of active Russian subs
Yeah, what I see is that they are building new SSBNs and the us does not.

File: 1478557034189.jpg (61KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x551px

>>32789392

NATO lost a fucking ship when trailing the Kuz, you are aware of this?

File: 1304812800655.jpg (91KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 700x525px

>>32789414
show me a single US, UK or French carrier operation within the past twenty years where they lost over 10% of their air wing within a month due to incompetence and shit tier maintenance

>>32789378
when you check the stats, check by percentage and take sortie rate into account(use same criteria for both sides), not pure numbers. i'll be glad to see the true rate
>>32789383
lets say you sink one for the sake of argument...this is why we have a couple of carriers ready to go from the us within a month. fleet response plan is smart. a good reserve is a safe reserve

>>32789368
It is not, when your missiles are incapable of shooting down a data-linked swarm of manoeuvring supersonic targets.
>THEY CARRY FULL SAM LOAD
>No, they don't
>SEE, THEY DON'T, YOU ARE WRONG
>Lol
>BUT THEY CAN
But they don't.

File: 1468447378183.png (836KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

836KB, 960x720px

>>32789378
>You see I could go and look up the stats

You don't need to considering the accidents received considerable news coverage.

>>32789405
US doctrine does not rely on SSGNs (apart from Ohio SSGN for land attack) Russian doctrine does.

>>32789439

Nobody's surprised that "someone" has a dog in making Russia look bad.

Meanwhile, Syria was a definite victory for Russians, whichever way you want to spin it.

>>32789428
>this is why we have a couple of carriers ready to go
This is why you can return home and reload missile tubes with more supersonic death. While American taxpayers will overthrow the government after the firs sunk CSG.

>>32789449
Which this whole argument is all about. Why rely on planes when you can hide AShMs under water.

>>32782095
honestly? because the US doesn't NEED missiles which are supersonic.

A.) all of our potential enemies has this habit of storing explosives on the open decks of their ships. so it pretty much just takes a normal hit to do catastrophic damage to them.

B.) all of our potential enemies (barring China) have shit self defense systems. so Tomahawks will do the job.

C.) we do actually have supersonic/hypersonic missiles which can be used against surface targets.

>>32789431
See, you say that they are incapable of shooting those missiles down. But the thing is, I don't believe you. So be a good little RIDF and post proofs.

>>32789428

> couple carriers ready to go

hahahaha

ready to go and do what, bully taliban?

it's common fucking sense that putting that many planes on a fucking floating deathtrap is pretty much the most idiotic thing you can do, when facing a country that actually has submarines and up-to-date missile tech

never mind the fact that currently they're all parked next to each other, ready to get BTFO (not ready to go)

>>32789479
The phrase "Common sense" doesn't work to handwave arguments away. If it's "common sense," why does the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Brazil, and Italy all do it?

>>32789469
Because planes are much more cost effective and can perform many more roles. Also re-arming and maintaining aircraft is far simpler.

>>32789476
See, you say that they are capable of shooting those missiles down. But the thing is, they never proved to be able to. So either keep shitposing into bumplimit or shut the fuck up and gtfo from this shitposting thread.

File: 14792120046130.jpg (268KB, 1280x850px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 1280x850px

> all these asshurt haters

I love the focus on planes, when at least half the loadout on the Kuz was Ka52s n shiet, who fully completed their SAR training and such

>>32789451
i think i see the problem now. dont consider this problem in a vacuum, but try to see how a carrier operates in a hypothetical war. how will your sub or other assets find the carrier? how will you get into a position to fire? if its europe, we dont have the carrier close to shore, we have land-based air. open ocean? good luck. a missile will kill any ship good, but how will it be employed? if a firing platform has already gotten a shot off, something has already gone very wrong

>>32789469
>Why rely on planes when you can hide AShMs under water.

because of the total area you can cover using aircraft. Subs on the other hand? hope the surface is feeding you up to date info or hoping that sonar actually pics something up.

>>32787940
>not stealthy

>>32789510
So we're at an impasse, then. Also
>copying my posts

You're very clever aren't you.

>>32789506
So can the subs. If you have money there is no reason not to hide your long range anti-ship assets under water instead of exposing them for the enemy to attack.

>>32785913
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

>>32782567
We developed hypersonic missiles 3 decades ago, and shifted away from them because our doctrine doesn't require them.

File: tu-142 & su-30sm.jpg (167KB, 1280x852px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1280x852px

>>32789522
The thing is, no once gives a fuck about a carrier that stays in the open ocean. Russia is a land power, they don't rely on naval routes even nearly as much as any other relevant country. As for employment and implementation, naval patrols are a thing.

>>32789538
>So can the subs.

>subs can't into AAW
>subs are poor at collecting SigInt
>subs are reliant on surface ships for anything more than a limited surface picture
>subs are shit at littoral combat

what the fuck are you on about?

>>32789538
Its more expensive, less mobile, incredibly vulnerable after firing (subsequent launches make it even more likely of being found), refit/refuel periods take a greater percentage of units out of active service, and the whole putting your eggs in one basket thing.

>>32789547
Never went beyond reactor testing stage, or whatever stage that was.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po2BPfbfKCc

>>32789612
>Supersonic cruise missile

Neat. The US had those, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-64_Navaho

>>32789577

> muh doctrine

Ah, so we're at this point in your backpedaling cycle.

Well Russian doctrine, doesn't need a bunch of floating deathtraps to put planes on, checkmate.

And yes, you're right the USSR decided they weren't gonna counter carriers with carriers (couldn't afford to either) and went for the smarter option of developing missiles.

It paid off.

You're actually lucky Trumpster is taking you off the collision path with Russia.

Then again you're probably not even American, since you didn't get the memo and are still posting 10 year old asshurt.

>>32789596
Exactly! But people still try and build them up to be some deadly naval power that will go out and sink every thing, when in reality its real job is to protect the country's strategic nuclear assets. Even in the Soviet Union it was primarily defensive in its doctrine.

>>32789596
>The thing is, no once gives a fuck about a carrier that stays in the open ocean.

but thats exactly how carriers operate, and what makes them so hard to kill. carriers dont have to go close to shore, they can stay at a distance which complicates tracking and targeting through the use of deception
www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm

a carrier is essentialy an airbase that moves, stays the fuck away from land-based enemy airpower, and shits bombs and missiles at the enemy from a distance. having a huge ocean to hide and maneuver in helps.

>>32789333
Joke's on you, that's not a soldier.

>>32789635

> we had those
> don't have them now
> this is good

This is like when the US used to have lots of artillery and top-attack munitions, doesn't anymore, but you can still damage control because you "used to".

>>32789642
>It paid off
And what country exists today?

Russia decided to throw a whole giant pile of money at their sub program, which turned out to be so subpar that they nearly bankrupted the country retrofitting the Typhoons, which are all now decommissioned.

File: 636.3 varshavyanka b-261 novorossiysk & UGST torpedo (2).jpg (2MB, 4588x3436px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4588x3436px

>>32789597
>subs are reliant on surface ships for anything more than a limited surface picture
About as much as surface ships are reliant on aircraft and satellites.
>subs are shit at littoral combat
Top kek, are you for real.

>>32789649

But they will sink anything, if you get anywhere close to them, and since they're making up 1/7th of this planet (also located in Eurasia, arguably the most important continent), that's a lot of fucking space to get sunk in.

>>32789660
>used to have lots of artillery and top-attack munitions

And the US doesn't now? Post proofs.

>>32789642
Russian doctrine is defensive, thus does not require carriers; before you say anything, Kuznetsov was for keeping NATO ASW aircraft out of the arctic. Its more or less a continuation of Soviet doctrine, ie. keep the Americans away from the nukes under the arctic and the ports in the north.

>>32789663

You're literally running around in circles right now.

We're talking about missiles, buddy.

And as far as Russian subs go, they're building new ones.

But its cute you're still trying to pin the failures of USSR on Russia.

>>32789642
not the guy you're talking to, but let me break the issue down for you.

>Russia cannot afford to field a large navy.
>Russia doesn't field any sort of strong air defense
>even if Russia managed to sink every ship the navy has it couldn't gain air superiority over the US
>the US can reach out and destroy every sub the Russians have, while they're in port.

>>32789682

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uiFhs5eg1c&t=432s

>>32789678
>anything, if you get anywhere close to them

Seeing as how the majority of ASW roles are performed by aircraft, I doubt this claim.

File: 14678072055440.jpg (15KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 320x320px

>>32789695

> russia can't afford to field a large navy

why should they

> russia doesn't field strong air defense

not only is it better than yours, but LMAO anyways

> air superiority

you wouldn't

> we can destroy subs in port

they can destroy carriers in port

checkmate

also post passport, you speak like a fucking ukrainian

>>32789596
>>32789656
in addition to this, we have the F-35, longer ranged than the F-18. bet the Navy is so happy at the increased range. the phrase"hold them at risk at range" is starting to get annoying, but its true

>>32789611
Aircraft requires a carrier and escort that turns out to be more expensive and less mobile due to the sheer amount on logistics involved, is not hidden under water at any point of its deployment and has limited range. SSGN can fire its missiles from under water hundreds kilometres away and follow to the port remaining unseen.

File: babby3.jpg (13KB, 305x303px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 305x303px

>>32789716
>Russia's air force better than the USAF/Navy
Call us back when you have a VLO aircraft.

File: RBMK.jpg (4MB, 3776x2520px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3776x2520px

>>32789716
>Everybody that disagrees with me is Ukranian

>>32789649
>But people still try and build them up
For power projection against the other 185-ish countries that are not top 5 military powers. I didn't say carriers are useless, I said Russia has had means to deal with them since forever.

>>32789732
>>32789748

this is REALLY weak shitposting, are you guys sure you're even american?

it's pretty delusional to think you can establish air superiority over russia, how could you even argue this

> vlo

what?

russians can't build vlo now? to mirror a shitpost from before

> they did it, but don't anymore

>>32789730
Carriers are damn near necessary if you want to project power across an ocean, if you already have a carrier you can afford to have aircraft to perform AAM, ASW, and most other acronyms. Also stealth is off the table when you perform an under water missile launch which is LOUD, you aren't sneaking anywhere after the first missile

>>32789799

What you're talking about is called an airfield.

What you posted about is called a deathtrap.

>>32789670
>About as much as surface ships are reliant on aircraft and satellites.

>total reliable surface picture of an AB destroyer using only it's own equipment:30-50NM
>total reliable surface picture of a sub using it's own equipment: 12 NM. if the lookout can actually see that far.

additionally surface ships can carry the things they need to expand their range, and can link info with one another to expand it even further. subs cannot.

>Top kek, are you for real.

you ever done sub hunting ops in a littoral zone with an aircraft? you don't even need sonar.

here's the main point. surface vessels have all these advantages and yes, you could theoretically transfer those over to the sub, but the instant you want to be stealthy with a sub, all those advantages go the fuck away.

>>32789793
>They did, but don't anymore

What VLO aircraft did the USSR or Russian Federation ever have?

>>32789656
And it's exactly why carriers won't work even nearly as effective against Russia as they usually are against some barefooted towelheads. You will just find yourself in the same situation as in 1971 in the Indian Ocean.

>>32789810

Here's the main point, russian subs can launch Kalibr spam from 2000km and you can't do anything about it.

>>32789721
>in addition to this, we have the F-35, longer ranged than the F-18
Call me back when they will make it fat enough to carry Harpoons and LRASMs internally.

File: 14600398350330.jpg (188KB, 800x1084px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 800x1084px

>>32789837

> making them more fat

I thought they were going another direction with the f35, when did this change?

File: Russian Airbase Syria.jpg (583KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

583KB, 2048x1536px

>>32789808
Airfields are just as vulnerable if not more so.

>>32789826
>russian subs can launch Kalibr spam from 2000km and you can't do anything about it.

Except shoot them down, of course. But I forgot that Russian equipment is infallible and always works, and nothing can stop it ever like a child with an everything proof shield.

>>32789799
Why on earth would Russia want to project power across an ocean? It's a land power, it got almost no sea trade to protect. They will be perfectly fine with two, one for both Northern and Pacific fleets.

>>32789851

Can you fucking go and stay go, you underage imbecile?

Holy fucking shit.

File: 14441684622740.jpg (55KB, 550x828px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 550x828px

>>32789860

> But I forgot that American equipment is infallible and always works, and nothing can stop them shooting down Kalibrs, they're almost like a child with an everything proof shield

>>32789810
>The difference between 12 and 50 nmi when satellites and aircraft exist
Seriously gonna stretch it to this?
>littoral zone
>with an aircraft
Good luck with land based air defence and coastal anti-ship and ASW assets. Diesel subs will eat alive anything that comes close enough to their domain.

The quality of this place really has gone down the shitter.

Some faggot actually wrote that airfields are more vulnerable than carriers.

Unbelievable.

File: yak-130 camo.jpg (304KB, 1452x913px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 1452x913px

>>32789849
Yak-130 ORIGINAL DESIGN DO NOT STEAL

>>32789716
>why should they
because they're incapable of any sort of naval superiority with their tiny, decaying fleet.

>not only is it better than yours, but LMAO anyways

oh really? your ground based quad missile trucks which rely on outside warning and are operated by drunk conscripts? or are you talking about your crap CIWS knockoff which only hits a target with an RCS the size of a MiG-15 20% of the time is better than the half dozen different air defense systems the US fields?

>you wouldn't

please, Russia couldn't even maintain air superiority over Georgia and they don't even HAVE an air force to speak of.

>they can destroy carriers in port

only if they make it to the ports. we on the other hand, only have to fly by and drop bombs.

>>32789865
You tell me that carriers are super vulnerable, unlike airfields, I show you that airfields aren't more secure, you get mad. The hell are you on about?

>>32789901
Vatniks talkingto themselves are not helping

>>32789851
> Russian Airbase Syria.jpg
That's Syrian Air Base and Syrian Hinds.

>>32789916

How did you show me that airfields aren't more secure?

By posting a Syrian airfield in the middle of a fucking jihadi warzone?

The equivalent of that would be a carrier surrounded by suicide bombers on zodiacs

>>32789901
They can be shelled and hit by cruise missiles, the hell are you talking about?

>>32789901
The slavnigger shitposters don't help.

File: i'm being an assburger.jpg (64KB, 502x374px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 502x374px

>it's another butthurt vatniks shitpost a thread to its bump limit while calling everyone else butthurt episode
>it's a rerun
And then they show up in later threads making pathetic, self-pitying posts asking why Russia is so despised and hated on /k/.

>>32789918
>Platinum shitposting thread
>Hurr durr vatniks
He can't handle the banter. Look at him. Point fingers at him and laugh.

File: 0d260e_fce6256c2d0f4bb1b7a617c7ca59487a.jpg (97KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 600x600px

>>32789915

> quad trucks
> russians NEED a fleet
> we can drop bombs on russia

yawn

>>32789940
>"Banter"
>Actually just vatniks being retarded while calling everyone else retarded

>>32789824
CSGs can hit land targets at range you know
>>32789837
>>32789849
pls no bully f35 she is a good plane doing her best

captcha is about planes

File: putin & a suka (1).jpg (62KB, 604x579px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 604x579px

>>32789939
>Not shitposting a shitposting thread into the autosage
You are not an assburger, you are a whiny faggot.

>>32789901
airfields are immobile, of course theyre more vulnerable

File: tu-22m3 with kh-22 (1).jpg (675KB, 1200x853px) Image search: [Google]

675KB, 1200x853px

>>32789958
Coastal targets can hit back much harder, not being restricted to warship tonnage, you know.

>>32789979

retard

>>32789934

absolute retard

>>32789826
>russian subs can launch Kalibr spam from 2000km and you can't do anything about it.

and what exactly are they targeting if they have no clue where enemy vessels are?

>>32789897
>Seriously gonna stretch it to this?

satellites provide non-real time intel to subs, Aircraft cannot be stowed on subs.

oh and lets not forget that subs either need to be on the surface to gather info, or need to be stationary and float a receiver AND have an asset nearby to receive the info from. unless of course they're using HF comms, in which case their surface picture will probably be anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour old. ergo, non real time.

>Good luck with land based air defence and coastal anti-ship and ASW assets

you mean those things that subs don't actually have on them? those things which US carriers are equipped to eliminate?

here's the deal. subs are good at USW. they aren't good as stand alone vessels.

>>32789988
>>32789991
www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
please read and understand, i've already made my point at>>32789656

a 9mm that hits the target is better than a 50 caliber that misses or cant see the target. mobility and deception is the carriers game

>>32790022

> what exactly are they targeting

let me guess, the carriers are stealthy as well right?