What´s your favorite war machine?
What´s your favorite war machine?
Easton Wright
Other urls found in this thread:
popularmechanics.com
youtube.com
topwar.ru
globalsecurity.org
google.com
twitter.com
Noah Evans
Toaster
Asher Robinson
I've always found jagdpanthers to be cute.
Jordan Ward
Austin Ward
Owen Richardson
Levi Mitchell
Gavin Cox
Why on earth an old single-piece production naval trainer prototype is your favourive _war_ machine?
Daniel Kelly
I was just posting great war machines related to Admiral Kutnesov. My favorite aircraft is Su-27K.
Hunter Rogers
Leo Myers
Gotta hand it to the Soviets. Their photoshopping's pretty good.
Austin Baker
Do you have the one of it crashing in a colossal fireball?
Leo Anderson
Samuel Jackson
This guy or 2S6M1.
Jaxon Gomez
unnironic answer
Carson Hernandez
zoomer
stormfag
socialist
Sebastian Flores
>"Goddamn thing's made to start a war."
Isaac Ross
Best carrierborne interceptor ever.
Zachary Walker
>Liking military hardware aligns you with a political ideology
Fuck off back to Jow Forums, you shitface identity politics millennial SJW, or whatever.
Nathaniel Hall
The only true answer
Joshua Reed
>made to start a war
SSBNs are rather made to prevent it. Second strike capability 'n shiet, y know.
Gavin Wood
faggot
Bentley Taylor
Shit was fairly useless tho.
James Hill
That is a cool story but I was quoting 'The Hunt for Red October'.
Liam Cooper
Don't watch h*llywood trash.
Brandon Rodriguez
The SLAM. Mach 3 at treetop level and spewing out radioactive debris from its reactor in the wake of the missile while it crisscrosses the USSR, chucking out nuclear warheads left and right over cities and military facilities while plowing over towns, villages and countryside to obliterate glass and light structures, damage homes and salt the earth with radioactive dust.
And it wont be one, it would be dozends if not hunderds turning the entire Soviet Union or any other country for that matter into one gigantic irradiated wasteland and turn any paradise into a nuclear hellscape.
The only thing left to improve over this is to make a SCRAM jet variant of it instead of a RAM jet one with even higher velocities to actualy destroy buildings while flying over them instead of damaging them.
Evan Powell
Cool story again, but its a book.
Juan Murphy
Don't read military f*ction trash.
Jonathan Barnes
Yeah but STOPPIN POWAH
Isaac Lee
That's all cool 'n dandy multimillion project, it would've been sad if something bad happened to it.
Alexander Lewis
Lol.
Connor Jones
>no fun allowed
Aiden Sullivan
>Trash is fun
Go smoke some weed on a piss-sodden matrass, punk.
Jackson Rodriguez
I love the Sturmtiger. Neat concept and looks great imo.
Brayden Taylor
:))
Charles Morris
The SLAM goes mach 3 at ~100 meters. Good luck intercepting something like that with S-200's.
Nathan James
Cool story, sure it did. Lol.
>Its estimated airspeed at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) was Mach 4.2
Henry Hernandez
>Best Soviet carrierborne interceptor ever.
FTFY
Jason Butler
>VLS on a carrier
Goddamn it Russia
Robert Reed
So best carrierborne interceptor ever then. Easily outperforms F-14 and, god forbid, *-18 in flight characteristics, range and payload. An elegant weapon of a more civilized age.
Ayden Ortiz
>exploding a nuclear scramjet loaded with hydrogen bombs over your SAM batteries
I guess that's a victory by Russian standards.
Brody Lee
Cruiser carriers are the best. Fight me.
Michael Rodriguez
take a seat, kiddo
Alexander Collins
This. Don't know why. From some angles it has that iconic American look, sharp edges and lines and a very distinct racecar kind of silhouette . From others it looks like a chibified F-16/22 hybrid. A weird animal but I really like it. Other than that I would say the M4 Sherman, the comfiest tank of WW2.
Jayden Peterson
I mean sure, if you're a country that can't afford to build/maintain a real one.
Christian Hill
popularmechanics.com
>Launched by a booster rocket during a crisis, SLAM’s nuclear-powered ramjet engine would kick in once the missile reached sufficient speed. The missile could then cruise for days or weeks. SLAM would enter enemy airspace at an altitude of 1,000 feet or less at Mach 3.5 speeds, its unshielded nuclear reactor spewing radioactive contamination across its path.
Also, at 9000+ meters going mach 4.2, it still would've been impossible to be intercepted by S-200's and even today such a missile going that fast that high would be extremely hard to intercept with using S-400/S-500's.
Henry Robinson
>Operational range 300 kilometres
>over your SAM batteries
Lol.
>exploding a nuclear scramjet
Yes, shooting down ICCMs preventing them from performing their function is precisely the mission.
>loaded with hydrogen bombs
Lol, nuclear weapons don't work the way you think they work.
Parker Morgan
The F-14 outclasses it, the F-18 is designed for a different time. The F-14 had superior range, speed, payload, and armaments. Additionally, it never had to sacrifice payload as a result of being a carrier borne aircraft.
James Ward
Why can't the US of A afford hunter/killer navy?
Noah Johnson
>The F-14 outclasses it
Be what metric?
Jordan Morgan
Sure is an impressive paperwork, so how do you think these papers perform in tests? Oh, right.
>popularmechanics
Lol, ok.
Asher Cruz
Did you read his post. During its terminal phase the thing would have descended well bellow the coverage of any S-type missile system, going at mach three. That's why its so ridiculous. Stop being nationalistic, this isn't a children's play ground, don't attach you ego to inanimate weapons systems that you did not construct.
Aiden Smith
>would have
Surely it will, paper ICCMs are clown for their performance.
Nathaniel Stewart
>Stop being nationalistic
I'm not being nationalistic, I'm being realistic. The project was cancelled specifically because it was going over the budget and was countered by this particular SAM.
Hunter Mitchell
So you dont like the source? I have another one for you my Russian friend:
>Pacчётныe тaктикo-тeхничecкиe хapaктepиcтики : длинa-26,8 м, диaмeтp-3,05 м, вec-28000 кг, cкopocть : нa выcoтe 300 м-3M, нa выcoтe 9000 м-4,2M, пoтoлoк-10700 м, дaльнocть : нa выcoтe 300 м - 21300 км, нa выcoтe 9000 м - бoлee 100000 км, бoeвaя чacть - oт 14 дo 26 тepмoядepных бoeвых блoкoв.
Another source for good meassure, only for you my dearest friend:
Ryan Jenkins
And also because ICBMs are just better, but that regards ICCMs in general as a class.
Dominic Rodriguez
>topwar
You just went from questionable to absolute shit-infested cesspit.
>Pacчётныe тaктикo-тeхничecкиe хapaктepиcтики
>Pacчётныe
Incredible durability of the American blueprint paper.
Ayden Moore
Stats I've found on speed indicate that the Su-33 was at least 150~ kilometers an hour slower at 2,300 vs the F-14's 2,450. Further, the Russain aircraft has a max takeoff weight of roughly 33,000kgs where the American plane has a max takeoff weight of 34,000kgs. However, no matter what that max weight is you have to drop several thousand kgs because of the fact that it isn't catapult assisted.
Isaiah Bell
Provide me sources stating otherwise. Untill then, you are merely coping at your loss in this debate. Cope, concede and kneel before me.
Joseph Morris
>Stats I've found on speed indicate that the Su-33 was at least 150~ kilometers an hour slower at 2,300 vs the F-14's 2,450
You seem to be right, my bad. That's a negligible difference considering max speed has nothing to do with combat speed, but still true.
>Further, the Russain aircraft has a max takeoff weight of roughly 33,000kgs where the American plane has a max takeoff weight of 34,000kgs.
Not how it works, I specifically said "interceptor". All the more so, their mission was different: F-14 was tasked with intercepting Tu-22M and Su-33 was tasked with intercepting F-14 and prospectively carrying heavy AShMs.
>you have to drop several thousand kgs because of the fact that it isn't catapult assisted
I just posted a graph proving that it doesn't.
Don't get me wrong, F-14 is a great naval interceptor, but Su-33 is just a generation above. I'm sure the US could've produced something alike if they actually needed it.
Nolan Walker
>Provide me sources stating otherwise
My source is that it doesn't exist outside of paper predictions.
Parker Powell
My ultimate dream.
>Win a decent amount of money, 40-50 mil
>Buy MIG-21U
>Restore it to like new over time.
>Hire an old dedushka eastern bloc pilot to train me at my local airport, room and board.
>See him smile as we soar through the Rockies.
>Become accustomed to wonky ass steering mechanism to taxi, ridiculous fuel consumption, controls, and flight to the point that I can comfortably land and take off on my own.
>Buy a refurbished MiG-21BIS, with all the bells and whistles to appease the FAA.
>Repair it wherever necessary with the old man.
>One early fall morning, a pilot from a different era watched his history come alive one last time.
>Some say he cried when it vanished into the clouds.
>Take her to her service ceiling and just... sit there for a moment.
>Watch the sun crest the horizon out of the cockpit.
I could die happy.
Evan Reyes
A man can dream.
Cameron Johnson
SOON
Ayden Martin
Incredible footage
Ayden Parker
The Russians are literally building these right now.
Nathaniel Jenkins
It's just colourized b/w. Still cool tho.
Easton Hall
>zoomer
shit meme, kys
Gabriel Roberts
No, they do not, they're not this retarded. Stop being retarded.
Ian Butler
80% losses on that one beach that got shelled by 2 of them. Their purpose was wrecking maginot but that germans did that before so the big ass canons were the cherry on top of france
Kevin Barnes
[Muffled "She's on fire" playing at the distance]
Run, zoomer. Run.
Isaac Thompson
Isaac Cook
>shooting down a missile travelling at mach three at low altitude at maximum oparational range.
Look, I get that Project Pluto didn't get far enough to be spoken about in a practical military sense, and I'm not trying to say it was. But let's be honest here; there's no way in hell the SAM battery would be able to detect, track, engage, and destroy an incoming mach three target at its maxumum operational range.
>Yes, shooting down ICCMs preventing them from performing their function is precisely the mission.
>Lol, nuclear weapons don't work the way you think they work.
I understand the implication of "blowing up a nuclear weapon doesn't cause a nuclear explosion you fucking idiot", which was not what I implied. The destruction of a nuclear weapon, even as a fizzle, produces a significant (although maybe not by russian standards) quantity of radioactive waste. Likewise, the destruction of a nuclear reactor, let alone one specifically designed without any sort of radiation shielding, is going to cause major problems.
>was countered by this particular SAM.
[citation needed]
As an aside, you can't tout the S200s capabilities while simultaneously dismissing the intended target as completely irrelevant. Either the SLAM was a legitimate threat and the S-200 was the counter to that (neither of which are really true), or the SLAM was a more or less pointless waste of money and energy which has no real relevance to the S-200 project, and vice versa.
Daniel Rogers
>these two nuclear powered ICCM projects have nothing to do with each other.
Well one managed to complete at least two successful tests, so I'll give you that much.
Jace Ortiz
>Burevestnik being anything like that 60s money dumpster
The only thing they have in common is nuclear propulsion. I thought I told you to stop being retarded.
Jason Gutierrez
>these two nuclear powered ICCM projects have nothing to do with each other
Indeed, they do not. Once has to be an absolute drooling clueless retard to think they do.
Jack Nguyen
I'm sorry that I like to watch bullshit holiday shenanigans while not drinking the koolaid because I'm a functioning adult and dont take everything seriously as if I had autism
Oh and yes I smoke weed ;) and trip acid occasionally
Adam Nelson
(not the other poster)
The Hunt for Red October wasn't trash. It had a lot of info that was not largely known, and was quite plausible in the details.
Now go soak your mattress in more slightly used vodka.
Anthony Sanchez
>what is SOSUS?
Parker Stewart
The F-4 outclasses that plane. Remind us of it's actual accomplishments, records, and combat performance?
Elijah Wood
The only difference between them is that Project Pluto managed to produce a functioning propulsion system, while the 9M730 managed to produce dead Russian scientists.
Colton Rodriguez
Russian battle group, everyone.
Sebastian Myers
>Look, I get that Project Pluto didn't get far enough
So what are we talking about then?
>But let's be honest here; there's no way in hell the SAM battery would be able to detect, track, engage, and destroy an incoming mach three target at its maxumum operational range.
The "300m" performance of SLAM is questionable at best, and even then, do you have any idea what kind of an RCS does something moving at Mach 4 at 9 km altitude produces?
>The destruction of a nuclear weapon, even as a fizzle, produces a significant (although maybe not by russian standards) quantity of radioactive waste.
Yes, it does. Please, get out of your 2019-thingking and consider that if things like this are flying in combat radioactive waste is the smallest of your concerns. Yes, such was the time. This is precisely why for instance Soviet aircraft engines didn't have exceptional endurance: because they were 1) for historical reasons considering a total war and 2) were realists and didn't expect aircreft to last that long in a total war.
>[citation needed]
Uh, like, common sense? S-200 is literally the SAM system that was countering SLAM and IIRC "the recent developments in SAM systems and ICBM" was particularly quoted as main reasons for SLAM cancellation. That is besides insane costs.
Sebastian Flores
Aaron Rogers
This aircraft's mere existence gives vatniks PTSD.
Landon Clark
>what is SOSUS?
Something that counters 2nd generation SSBNs like Delta II.
Brody Baker
You realize that ships pictured on the photo carry more firepower than several CBGs, right?
Michael Young
>Please, get out of your 2019-thingking
I wasn't aware that irradiating large swaths of your own country only became a bad idea in 2019. I guess that's why Chernobyl went down the way it did.
The point of my original post is to point out the futility of shooting down a weapon like SLAM; As you proceed to say, in a situation of total war, much worse things will be flying around. You're fucked either way. If the thing is in the air and heading your way, the best case scenario is you shoot it down and it disintegrates into radioactive dust over your head. Not exactly a big win.
>S-200 is literally the SAM system that was countering SLAM and IIRC "the recent developments in SAM systems and ICBM" was particularly quoted as main reasons for SLAM cancellation
So... no citation then?
Andrew Phillips
>vodkaniggers actually believe this
Jonathan Harris
>irradiating large swaths of your own country
Let me repeat, in case you didn't catch it the first time: if things like this are flying in combat radioactive waste is the smallest of your concerns.
>So... no citation then?
Can't be bothered. Point is this useless shit is cancelled for good.
Joseph Green
>Can't be bothered.
So that's a no.
David Ross
How many 300+ km range 500+ kg warhead AShMs does a CBG carry?
Asher Bell
Yes, that's a no.
Gavin Ross
It's literally the same thing
Connor Martin
None, which is as many as they need. I know you're brain is probably too fried by krokodil to understand this, but warships carry weapons for tasks other than killing other ships. A big part of the US Navy's role is power projection, which means being able to kill the everliving fuck out of anything anywhere on the planet. That's as opposed to the Russian Navy's role of finding their own sunken submarines.
Matthew Green
It literally is not. What the actual fuck, just how fucking retarded are you?
One is an 60s wunderwaffe anti-urban supersonic ICCM with several warheads that costs a metric shitfuckington of money and never left the drawing board, other is a regular ICCM in testing.
Adam Taylor
>None
Ok.
>warships carry weapons for tasks other than killing other ships
So why can't the US of A afford hunter/killer navy?
Ian Sanchez
>So why can't the US of A afford hunter/killer navy?
Because we're too busy affording a navy that can do that and everything else, I guess would be the answer.
Levi Cook
>never left the drawing board
The Troy-IIC was tested successfully several times, which is a significantly better than Russia's radioactive crop duster of an ICCM.
Xavier Bell
>Because we're too busy affording a navy
Yeah, not a hunter/killer one. Stay impotent.