>“And finally, a fat blot on the Avangard theme! On December 26, American reconnaissance satellites did not record any missile launches from the territory of the Orenburg Region and target destruction in Kamchatka. - ironically noted users.
Ukrainians BTFO Russians! According to the social media of Ukrainians via twitter, American NASA satellites did not detect the Avangard launch. This means that there is no Avangard missile and is just fake news.
>>“And finally, a fat blot on the Avangard theme! On December 26, American reconnaissance satellites did not record any missile launches from the territory of the Orenburg Region and target destruction in Kamchatka. - ironically noted users. says who?
Leo Parker
How do you know it wasn't a Chinese quantum missile undetectable by american inferior satellites?
Anthony Barnes
Here
Daniel Wood
It it Ukrainian social media.
Nathaniel Jones
the only people less reliable than the Russians would be the fucking hohols.
Did it ever occur to the Ukrainians that NASA imaging satellites are not designed for missile detection but for imaging natural disasters?
Robert Murphy
Says the vatnik.
NASA has the best satellites. It's impossible for it to miss a ballistic missile launch.
Matthew Campbell
Best isn't an equal measurement of capability. If the optical imaging capability of your satellite is optimized for weather, it will focus a lot on visual band and be pointed towards areas where the weather is interesting. If you're the NRO and looking for weapons test, you're gonna have a lot of IR imaging capability and be looking at known test grounds. tbqh the Ukrainians are retarded, and independently of whether the russkies are lying or not, the ukies definitely are.
Carson Hughes
>ukrainians No such thing.
Jaxon Moore
>American reconnaissance satellites did not record any missile launches LMAO burger satellites suck.
Because there wasn't a dozen chinkshill threads up on Jow Forums as soon as it happened. The future of stealth defeating is shill detection.
Ayden Stewart
Kys vatnick before we send the Finns to do it!
Adrian Garcia
There's not a single mention of NASA anywhere in the article. They only make the claim that US satellites didn't pick up any launch, and that's just a social media quote as they point out.
It really does look like a CGI missile. But then it doesn't necessarily mean it is.
Jonathan Bailey
Strawman harder, faggot OP
Christian Thompson
>this looks fake as fuck Exactly, if it was real then it would use Cold Launch. Russia does not know how to use Hot Launch.
i imagine its more reliable. less things to go wrong. theres quite a few videos of s-300s etc. failing to ignite the main engines after getting pooped out of the launcher.
not so sure about that, looks more real than thought at first they sped up the footage but when you look at the smoke you can see that its at normal speed.
Christian Rogers
Do you have any data on this or you're just trolling Russians? Perhaps it's more reliable but needing to reinforce launching tube is probably expensive and it makes it heavy as fuck.
America uses Hot Launch therefore it the more technologically impressive one and very efficient Russia does not have the intellectual fortitude to develop Hot Launch so they use the more inefficient Cold Launch.
Easton Carter
>Video is spliced Lol, clearly propaganda effect. Different missile launches.
Very impressive. The technological superiority of the American Eagle is truly unmatched, which further enhances their position as the noble steward of the 21st century.
Jacob Reed
is there anything out there today that isn't fucking fakenews?
From what I understand, in hot launch, thruster are ignited and woooshhh. Cold launch, the missile is first launched out of it storage then the thruster is ignited. Don't know what pro and cons are (maybe something with resistance to heat or something).
Lucas Butler
And that's the danger with the Avangard
American satellites cant detect it.
Uninterceptible Stealth Nuke. Bow down you burgerfats.
Julian Brown
Hot launch is for irresponsible cowboys.
Gabriel Bennett
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not that some random schmoe would even have access to the relevant American Military sats., but even if there were a failure do you think the US wouldn't have let on much, much earlier or even just pre-empt some rando?
Adam Gutierrez
Honestly, it's not that much of a big deal. Once you launch an SM-2, a Tomahawk or something like this, you'll have to clean up the launch tube but it's not that hard. Also, as the motor is extra powerful, those burn time are very short so there is not really the time to burn anything to crisp. At least nothing that a little thermal protection can't overcome. I'm talking mostly about regular missiles, but not ICBM. I don't know a lot about launching ICBM from silo.
Leo Cruz
Soft launch tend to be a little easier, given that you don't have to protect the launch tube or silo with thermal protection that much. On the other hand, you need to deal with an interstage and a second ignition and that makes it more complicated and prone to failure. Hot launch is more reliable as once the engine ignite, the missile will go on a out his mission and there is no risk of it falling back to the tube/launch-pad/silo. On the other hand, you are igniting a whole rocket motor sometimes right next to another missile (in the case of vls for example) and thus need to be extra careful and have some thermal protection. So in the end, the pros of one are the cons of the other. There is no miracle solution. Western countries tend to have more safety in mind, that's why almost all missiles are hot launches Russian and Chinese tend to be more concerned about single unit price, that's why almost all missiles are cold launched.
Robert Green
I wonder how fun it would be to blast yourself out of one these cold launch tubes with just the first stage cold launch
Austin Ortiz
Hot launch for liquid fueled rockets is used because extra time needed for the engine to get stable, like Soyuz being held down and let go after it starts. Solids are a lot more snappy.
Robert Nguyen
>another
the first one was a hot launch
Jeremiah Hill
>russian new weapon allegedly entirely false and doesn't even exist >only people picking up on it is a literally who in a country that dislikes russia Yes, seems very believable
Jaxson Barnes
>Ukrainians BTFO Russians!
wasnt ukraine also the one that state usa killed 749 russians in syria at first? claiming that it was ukraine that gave usa the info?
yeah lol..
Hunter Williams
>missile launched from the pad as dark gray >missile goes out of the water as light gray
Adam Russell
>Ukrainians BTFO Russians! According to the social media of Ukrainians via twitter, American NASA satellites did not detect the Avangard launch. This means that there is no Avangard missile and is just fake news.
Are you still asshurt that DERPAs HTV-2 was a failure?
it was a ukrainian radio that first said this and also that some ukrainian hackers hacked the glonass and gave the info to the usa
basicly bullshit level of stupidity
James Cook
If we lost the war the why isn't there 20-50% smelly Russians in this country like in the Baltics?
Thomas Phillips
>i imagine its more reliable. less things to go wrong. It's the other way around, actually. If an engine failure happens with cold launch, you can just leave the pooped out missile and drive away. It would also be relatively easy to dispose of later, either by detonating right where it is or by carefully picking it up to move. With hot launch, you now have an unexploded ordinance in your launching tube. Good luck getting rid of it without risking the whole vehicle/launching site. You'll need to dislodge it from the launcher (and it might be deformed and stuck), take it out, and only then dispose of, all that without accidentally making it explode. And the consequences of a hot launch missile exploding right in the tube are way worse than for the cold one exploding outside.
Dominic Moore
Yet even the poorest country in all of Europe does better or the same as Russia on shitloads of life quality metrics. I know Russians just respond with 'NO U' type of garbage, but I'd be ashamed if I were them.
