Any thoughts on Russian missiles? https://m.tvzvezda.ru/new

>>34907118
nice try aussie go start a war on your own time

Russian missiles are wasteful and overappreciated. Unlike Chinese missiles that are efficient yet effective. There is a reason why Chinese tech are accepted in the /k/ board and Russian tech is not.

>>34907368
This
If i was a country in need of cheap yet reliable
military equipment and weapons, i would be buying from China.

>>34907368
>>34908321
Spotted the chink with an AirBnB.

File: multistagerocket2.jpg (29KB, 320x211px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 320x211px

Every scholar history knows that the very first missiles originated in China

China has impressive missiles.

China has the superior technology that was indigenously developed with honor and dignity.

>>34907118
>https://m.tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/201706271742-c6rh.htm

That Sineva SLBM launch was too clean while the first Bulava SLBM salvo launch has lots of smoke. Why? Also the second Bulava launch looks cleaner than the first Bulava salvo launch.

It is clear that China is a superior weapons designer, nevertheless, China is moving towards being a peaceful and prosperous world power that has an economy that is nuber 1# in the world.

is this the shitpost containment thread

File: 0_6c772_fea8d020_XXXL.jpg (220KB, 851x1280px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 851x1280px

>>34908888

>That Sineva SLBM launch was too clean while the first Bulava SLBM salvo launch has lots of smoke. Why?

The R-29 Sineva is a liquid fueled missile while the RSM-56 Bulava is a solid fueled one. The former produces little to no smoke while the latter makes billowing clouds of them.

Liquid fueled missiles have a better T/W ratio and thus have a better throwing weight but the downside is that they have to be fueled up which takes time and you would need fuel tanks onboard the submarine, taking up space. Solid fueled ones dont have those disadvantages as they can stay fueled and ready to fire at a moments notice for decades if well maintained.