SHIEEE

>>33574407
back to wm, pidoran.

>>33574407
>1000lb
>950kg
wut?

>>33574407
>and it explodes midway
How? Just, how? Also, what exactly are you trying to say.

File: C80ri9vWsAAXqc3.jpg (74KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 480x640px

>>33574423
>59 Launched
>only 23 reached destination

Pic related is head of a tomahawk that fell down by itself near Lebanon. Couldn't even reach half destination ( 200km).sad.

>>33574436
Doesn't look much like your picture m8

>>33574407
>nuclear Tomahawk
They don't really have them anymore.

>>33574436
>only 23 reached destination
You know this isnt true.

>>33574407
How does a tomahawk missile compare to a ballistic missile? Is there a reason the US is using mostly the former?

>>33574988
>How does a tomahawk missile compare to a ballistic missile?
Tomahawks are conventional, and are cruise missiles.
Ballistic missiles are nuclear and are ballistic missiles.

Tomahawks are obsolete and Obama killed the replacement program.

>>33575007
No shit nigger (also, I meant non-nuclear ballistic missiles.) Is there something one can do that the other can't? What are their respective roles?

>>33575044
>Tomahawks are obsolete
Since 58 hit the target despite heavy presence of russian point defense and SAM, Tomahawks are more than enough.

Why do you faggots just blindly believe what the Russians tell you? I don't trust our government, but they tend not to outright lie when there's a 100% chance they will have it disproven.

>>33575077
i thought only 25 hit?

>>33574417

This.

What the fuck?

Makes you wonder how much of that image is also bullshit or just invented.

>>33574407
1000 isn't 950kg moron.

>>33575102
Because russians are stupid in assuming they knew the entire american target list and have never heard of double taps apparently, even when they do the same with their own airstrikes to get through air defenses.

>>33574436
Doesn't look like the missile at all.

>>33575050
The US doesnt have non-nuclear ballisitic missiles.

Cruise missiles are slower, but fly low to the ground making detection difficult.

Ballistic missiles are faster but fly high up and are easy to detect.

File: s077536011-300.jpg (635KB, 2000x1144px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 2000x1144px

>>33574436
There are 44 separate targets hit in this image and 14 appear to have been hit twice.

The Russians didn't stop any of them, and only one lost its way.

>>33575212
b-but MUH 23 MISSULS

>>33574436
>think anon is shitposting
>check google
Holy shit people are buying this shit?

>>33575102
I posted a satellite photo here: >>33575212

A minimum of 44 hit, but that assumes that all of the targets that appear to have blown up twice in this image did so by secondary explosion instead of a second tomahawk.

It looks to me like there were 58 hits unless the Syrians were storing 500 kilo bombs in pretty weird places.

hypersonic scramjets/ramjets when?

File: ORD_BGM-109_Tomahawk_Block_IV_Cutaway_lg.gif (90KB, 800x624px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 800x624px

>>33574449
>>33575129

Blue tank, the missile exploded apart midway

File: 1449536561134.jpg (37KB, 300x360px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 300x360px

While we're on the subject... I'm going to be graduating with a BS in Chemical Engineering in May. Do you guys know of any missile companies that may be looking to bolster their numbers now that Trump has shown firing them is on the table? I've already applied to Raytheon.

File: ORD_ATACMS_Launch_MLRS_lg.jpg (166KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 800x1000px

>>33575174

Yes it does.

>>33576464
So is that a ship borne weapon?

No?

Then stop being retarded.

>>33576464
Sorry. I didn't mean to trigger your autism.

>>33576475

>The US doesnt have non-nuclear ballisitic missiles.

>>33574407
Hello k/bros, with respect to the recent Tomahawk incident, these are some pics of airbase where Tomahawk hit
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C81jcO5W0AEGtIn.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C81jdIFXUAAwkSe.jpg
can k/bros confirm that these are CW?

>>33576492
>Ignoring the context of the conversation so you can be an autist.

I love /k/

>>33576490

>The US doesnt have non-nuclear ballisitic missiles.

>>33576496
They can also contain conventional weapons.

>>33576500

>The US doesnt have non-nuclear ballisitic missiles.

>>33575212
You can't see shit in that image. Not saying other anon is right, but that picture doesn't prove anything.

>>33576464
Who photoshopped this picture? It looks wrong on so many levels - did they hire Iranians for the job?

>>33575050
Every military alarm bell in the world goes off when an ICBM launch is detected because there is no way to know if it is carrying a nuclear payload or not and it can't be stopped. You can only accept the possibility you're about to watch the first nuclear weapon detonated in anger since WWII and launch a retaliatory strike while you still can.

Theater-scale ballistic missiles are considered less threatening in terms of triggering a Mutually Assured Destruction response but they are also far less effective than a cruise missile at shorter (sub-500 nautical mile) ranges.

They can't achieve the Mach 20+ velocity of an ICBM due to the lower trajectory required to hit nearby targets. It has become relatively easy to shoot down a large target traveling at Mach 5+. Since a ballistic trajectory is so easily tracked, this places the advantage in the favor of a fast cruise missile which is able to fly below most radar coverage. That said, the Tomahawk is incredibly outdated and slow despite the concept being solid.

File: 1491602801649.png (2MB, 1982x670px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1982x670px

>>33576548
Here's a better res image.

File: mlrs9.jpg (45KB, 400x482px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 400x482px

>>33576570

>implying its photoshopped

File: 1478737595761.png (83KB, 353x332px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 353x332px

>>33574436
Just FYI, I can tell you all 59 landed. More were supposed to be launched but for some reason that did not happen. 59/59 hit their targets so don't believe whatever bullshit you think you saw. That is all.

>>33576645
58/59

1 tomahawk had a GPS failure and never hit

File: himars_10.jpg (44KB, 550x393px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 550x393px

>>33576570

>doesn't know ATACMS have fake covers to make them look like regular MLRS

>claims photoshop

>>33576657
OK maybe. I wasn't on shift at the time so I was just talking to coworkers who were. I'll grant MAYBE one didn't hit.

>>33575050
Ballistic used to be harder to intercept but that has changed in recent years.

Ballistic does not rely on difficult to produce high-efficiently turbofan engines.

Ballistic is not as constrained by arms control agreements for ground launched versions.

Cruise is not as constrained by arms control agreements for air and sea launched versions.

Cruise tends to have better accuracy.

Cruise is better at deploying CW and biological agents.

Cruise can fly around geographical features that would block a ballistic path.

>>33576731
>Cruise can fly around geographical features that would block a ballistic path
You do know what a ballistic trajectory looks like right?

>>33576746
Cruise missiles are like planes not ballistic missiles. They can loiter and avoid landforms. A cruise missile is NOT a ballistic missile.

>>33576784
You can also avoid landforms by going straight into the fucking stratosphere

>>33576746
>>33576784
Sorry never mind. I misread what you posted.

>>33576746
Yep.

That point is really only appicable to the Chinese push to develop a GLCM to hit Tiwanese airfields in the 'shadow' of mountain ranges but worth the inculsion as its a reason a mostly balistic force started delpoying cruise. They could loft a longer range missile to make the shot but that is a waste of a larger and more expensive missile when you could just use cruise.

>>33576731
>Cruise can fly around geographical features that would block a ballistic path.

Whereas the ballistic one simply drops down from above, so unless you're planning on slipping that cruise into a tunnel or cave system...

>>33576819
That is definitely a good feature :)

>>33574436
This is blatantly false and has already been proven as such.

>>33574436
>Pic related is head of a tomahawk that fell down by itself near Lebanon.

Bullshit. That flora says North American temperate rainforest.

>>33575212
This...

>>33575115
Look at the source credit. There's probably all kinds of subtle bullshit in that graphic. The CIA isn't real good at a lot of things, but their creative bullshit is world class.

>>33576819
Or around a mountain, or into a valley.

>>33575212
Makes sense they were still able to run planes. The Runway wasn't targeted at all. Not to mention Tomahawks were meant for airburst.

>>33576401

Where are you located? Lockmart, Raytheon, and few smaller companies have a major presence in the North Texas area.

>>33576664

Not that guy, but for what purpose would they use fake covers?

>>33576310
Bullshit. The proportions are off. In the pic you're referring to, that item looks to be 2-3 gallon capacity.

Based on the North American plants in the pic, plus the ABS or poly piping, I'm going to say that somebody on the West Coast of North America either installed or replaced their down-hole well pump.

Quit being a gullible retard.

>>33577336
Arizona, but I'm willing to move literally anywhere in the US.

>>33576401
>graduating with a BS in Chemical Engineering
You're expecting them to get you in with just a BSc ??

File: blank_facepalm_224.gif (48KB, 387x259px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 387x259px

>>33577229
>Tomahawks were meant for airburst.

>>33577359
IIRC ATACMS has a much longer range than standard MLRS rockets. If your enemy has scouts and they see a rocket battery that's outside standard MLRS range and it looks like MLRS is loaded into the pods, they're less likely to consider it an immediate threat to their assets.

>>33574417
>>33575115

Also appeared in 1991... I'm pretty sure that Tomahawk was introduced in 1983, it was first used against an opponent in 1991.

>>33574436

Multiple missiles against individual targets in case Syria or Russia had something that could intercept Tomahawks in the area.

File: 1489510748862.jpg (32KB, 531x640px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 531x640px

>>33574407
Daily reminder that all but 1 hit their target.

File: tomahawk airburst.jpg (251KB, 1440x712px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1440x712px

>>33577456

>be engineer in defense industry

this thread is amusing

>>33577446
I'm sure they have to have some entry-level undergrad openings. Surely not everyone there is a Masters/PhD?

>>33576584
Fuck off shill

File: Bruh.jpg (13KB, 387x309px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 387x309px

>>33577229
Bruh

>>33577644
>Implying airburst is the only warhead/guidance mode of the Tomahawk.

>>33577740
see
>>33577644

cunt

>>33577719
If it's missiles, maybe try Aerojet Rocketdyne and Orbital ATK.

>>33577783
see
>>33577776

cunt