User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:21:20 PM EDT
[#1]
I'm trying to give a f*ck, but apparently, my "give a f*ck" meter isn't working. F*ck'Em! They can get pissed at each other and exchange fire.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:22:20 PM EDT
[#2]
Waddya gonna do?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:23:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you say "meh" in Russian. mehyt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:24:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good hit Curious what went wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:24:50 PM EDT
[#5]
let the flame begin
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-08/us-claims-malfunctioning-russian-cruise-missiles-hit-iran |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:32:23 PM EDT
[#6]
Israelis are smart enough to get a Russian cruise missile to hit Iran's nuclear facilities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:35:50 PM EDT
[#7]
RT claims that malfunctioning cruise missiles that landed in Iran was done purposely:
Russian defense officials have stated that western media reports of cruise missiles unintentionally crashing in Iran are false.
"CIA backed ISIS terrorists invad the sovereignty of the most glorious ally Iran," said one vodka soaked Russian Air Force colonel. "We identify terrorist position using great motherland satellites and then destroy them with perfect made Russian missiles. Iran thank us. No is accident." The Russian colonel was unavailable for further comment after he vomited on the podium and then passed out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:42:28 PM EDT
[#8]
In Soviet Russia cruise missile cruises wherever the hell it wants.
Russia~ "we put the miss back in missile". "Let's see Capitalist Pigs do any better with Russian Made crap after enjoying a quart or two of cheap vodka".~ Missing Russian General 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:50:05 PM EDT
[#9]
QUALLLLLITY
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:51:34 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:58:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is when I miss the detailed analysis of the situation from our friend comrade Primorsky Well we do have the DOD/CIA/Anonymous source side of it. Would be interesting to hear another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 3:59:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This is how WWIII could start... Russian cruise missiles accidentally hit a U.S. carrier. They can't even hit the right fucking country, never mind a minuscule carrier.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:01:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:02:01 PM EDT
[#14]
US Tomahawk cruise missiles have also gone off course and crashed on their way to their targets
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:04:21 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The are launching from the caspian sea over Iran, then Iraq, finally Syria. The junk missile crashed before reaching target. http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2015/10/07/17/RussiaCaspianStrikes.jpg They might want to be careful about shooting over Azerbaijan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:04:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. I dont know if I would go so far to say that. However, I don't think a lot of people remember how many of our Tomahawks malfunctioned in '03. Underestimating your enemies is one of the worst things you can do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:05:14 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:06:12 PM EDT
[#18]
I fall somewhere around this
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha Ha Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha Ha and this Quoted:
No fucks given. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:07:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. I lived there. What's surprising is how bad it really is. They take 3rd world to a new level, in -40 conditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:08:28 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dont know if I would go so far to say that. However, I don't think a lot of people remember how many of our Tomahawks malfunctioned in '03. Underestimating your enemies is one of the worst things you can do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. I dont know if I would go so far to say that. However, I don't think a lot of people remember how many of our Tomahawks malfunctioned in '03. Underestimating your enemies is one of the worst things you can do. Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:09:51 PM EDT
[#21]
I don't underestimate the Russians themselves. They are a very tough, resilient, yet resigned people to a life of constant misery.
Their equipment, however, is one of the most overestimated piles of crap in the history of mankind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:10:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. Meh. Can't make a career out of a cold war without it being a "significant threat." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:11:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I dont know if I would go so far to say that. However, I don't think a lot of people remember how many of our Tomahawks malfunctioned in '03. Underestimating your enemies is one of the worst things you can do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. I dont know if I would go so far to say that. However, I don't think a lot of people remember how many of our Tomahawks malfunctioned in '03. Underestimating your enemies is one of the worst things you can do. One thing also to remember is that the Russians know as well as we do that most of their stuff is crap, and are used to fighting under adverse conditions that most western armies wouldn't dream of. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:14:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One thing also to remember is that the Russians know as well as we do that most of their stuff is crap, and are used to fighting under adverse conditions that most western armies wouldn't dream of. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I wouldn't be so sure that this was just a total failure of their technology as opposed to some kind of planned, weird strategy. Don't kid yourself - the Russians are good. I dont know if I would go so far to say that. However, I don't think a lot of people remember how many of our Tomahawks malfunctioned in '03. Underestimating your enemies is one of the worst things you can do. One thing also to remember is that the Russians know as well as we do that most of their stuff is crap, and are used to fighting under adverse conditions that most western armies wouldn't dream of. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Yeah I do believe that too but I also see this as them testing out their new toys and working out the kinks like we did a decade or so ago. Every now and then you need some real word tests to see what does and doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:14:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. 
Stings the nostrils... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:16:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. Like I said in the Putin hockey thread, the rusties don't have the tech to hit syria |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:17:33 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:20:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Meanwhile, Democrats and the Americans who voted for them have been proving to the Russians exactly how they can fuck it all up and continue to get re-elected. We have been watching the Russian military fuck up everything they touch since their Afghanistan moving on to Chechnya, Ukraine and now Syria (although it's a little too early to scream quagmire the way the American media did on the third day of America's Afghanistan.) At least our military will have a chance to learn something about Russia's military since we know our elected leaders won't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:20:45 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't underestimate the Russians themselves. They are a very tough, resilient, yet resigned people to a life of constant misery. Their equipment, however, is one of the most overestimated piles of crap in the history of mankind. How many classic cars of Russian manufacture do you have in your garage ? I don't know of anyone that has one, or even know of any. I know of American, British, German, Japanese, Italian, and a few other nations that made cars that were so good that they became classic collectibles. The fact that the Russians don't have anything is a testament to the failure of the system they lived under to deliver profits to the worker while making high quality goods that they could afford, and that would make an impact around the globe. Like LRRP says, their familiarization with misery ( the system described above ), has made them content in it, along with an acceptance of low quality control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:21:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Malfunctioning and crashing mid-flight in the nation of an ally versus hitting the target but not completely destroying it are very different comparisons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:21:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
aren't they kinda far apart?  Flight path from the Caspian Sea was right over Iran. When I saw the map I was surprised Iran had cleared the flights... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:22:32 PM EDT
[#32]
They must have packed the blackpowder unevenly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:22:35 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:23:57 PM EDT
[#34]
And to think people on this very site believe Russia is a competent and viable fighting force.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:24:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't underestimate the Russians themselves. They are a very tough, resilient, yet resigned people to a life of constant misery. Their equipment, however, is one of the most overestimated piles of crap in the history of mankind. In my very limited experience, this is accurate. The Russians know this as well, they are anything but stupid Determined, is probably the appropriate description. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:28:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Malfunctioning and crashing mid-flight in the nation of an ally versus hitting the target but not completely destroying it are very different comparisons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Malfunctioning and crashing mid-flight in the nation of an ally versus hitting the target but not completely destroying it are very different comparisons. I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing whats worse guidance system malfunctions or motor malfunctions. I just posted because it gets tiresome when people just take obvious DOD propaganda* at face value with out looking at it critically. Yes the Russian missiles are probably crap but again this is probably their proving ground and at least a minor part of the reason they decided to use them as opposed to just dropping bombs. Nothing like real world tests. *edit- not saying the report is untrue just that this article could barely be called journalism. DOD should have just put out a press release. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:29:48 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meh. Can't make a career out of a cold war without it being a "significant threat." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. Meh. Can't make a career out of a cold war without it being a "significant threat." It's not about "careers". You don't underestimate the enemy. Ever. That kind of arrogance has zero utility in the nuclear age. If the Russians can reliably put rockets into space to resupply the space station or launch a satellite without them blowing up on the launch pad [cough] NASA / USAF [/cough], then they can put a MIRV or ALCM / SLCM on target in some city somewhere. At the height of the Cold War, they even built a reusable Space Shuttleski that could be remotely piloted. They may have run out of money by the late '80s / early '90s, but the technology was there and it was done without the aid of computers; they did all that with an understanding of higher mathematics and a lot of chalkboard and little more. THAT's impressive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:31:37 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russian cruise missiles have 1-2 COA accuracy Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Margin of error 1-2 countries Russian cruise missiles have 1-2 COA accuracy 
Well done sir, well done 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:32:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell it to the Nazis. The Russians have one other thhing on their side. They don't care how many casualties they incur during a military operation. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Russians are a joke. Only thing they ever had going for them was strength in numbers and big enough nukes to negate a minute of continent accuracy. Tell it to the Nazis. The Russians have one other thhing on their side. They don't care how many casualties they incur during a military operation. Also, we were bombing the shit out of the nazis at the same time so they couldn't commit their full might against the soviets and were only able to increase production at a fraction of what we were able to do. (Russian production plummeted during the early years fighting the nazi's.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:34:01 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ In 1991.... ETA: and years later |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:36:28 PM EDT
[#41]
LOL....right.
Next time, target their nuke facilities. Mistakes happen. Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:38:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And to think people on this very site believe Russia is a competent and viable fighting force. There are some straight up "militaryphotos.net" level tards here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:42:35 PM EDT
[#43]
LOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:43:08 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Syriasly? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:44:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Know why they beat us with sputnik? They couldn't make small warheads. So their missles had a heavy lift capability. So they were huge, and had to be placed in the open, and they took about 18 hours to get ready for launch. By contrast, our missles were small, hardened, and ready to launch in about 15 minutes. However, they had a platform ready to launch a large load into space. Because they needed it because they were technically behind us. Back in the day few knew this and hence there was a huge panic about them passing us technically. It resulted in garbage like "new math". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. Know why they beat us with sputnik? They couldn't make small warheads. So their missles had a heavy lift capability. So they were huge, and had to be placed in the open, and they took about 18 hours to get ready for launch. By contrast, our missles were small, hardened, and ready to launch in about 15 minutes. However, they had a platform ready to launch a large load into space. Because they needed it because they were technically behind us. Back in the day few knew this and hence there was a huge panic about them passing us technically. It resulted in garbage like "new math". The Russians launched Sputnik first and it went and orbited the world making beeping noises. Kruschev crowed about it and puffed his feathers. Eisenhower smiled and finally gave permission for our instrumented satellites to be launched. We had several separate programs by various military branches. Eisenhower was big on technological reconnosaince and he wanted Kruschev crowing about flying over most of the countries in the world so he couldn't create a lot of fuss about American sattellites peering down on him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:45:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Did the Russians really miss? Maybe it was a case of Fuck you because Fuck you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:47:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did the Russians really miss? Maybe it was a case of Fuck you because Fuck you. I think they are allied with Iran right now in Syria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:51:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Maybe Putin just likes our old 80's hits?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:52:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Malfunctioning and crashing mid-flight in the nation of an ally versus hitting the target but not completely destroying it are very different comparisons. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Russian cruise missiles, 60% of the time they work every time. http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zLq2-uZd5LY/hqdefault.jpg Stings the nostrils... As with many other systems, in the immediate aftermath of the first Gulf War, the performance of cruise missiles like the Tomahawk was overrated. At the time, the U.S. military reported that of the 288 Tomahawks launched at the Iraqis, eight malfunctioned after launch, 45 missed their targets, two were shot down and 233 scored hits. However, in the years that followed, serious studies found that the Tomahawk's success rate had been significantly overstated. It is now widely believed that Tomahawks destroyed their targets less than 40 percent of the time. The Defense Intelligence Agency conducted a bomb damage assessment on 357 strategic targets for which sufficient data was available. Some of these targets were engaged by Tomahawks. Of the 34 Tomahawks launched against these targets, 18 destroyed their targets and 16 failed to do so, about a 53 percent success rate. Of the 16 that failed to destroy their targets, the largest portion (the exact numerical breakdown remains classified) experienced guidance failures on the way to the target. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/04/23/Analysis-Strategic-bombing-in-Iraq-war/47351051129899/ Malfunctioning and crashing mid-flight in the nation of an ally versus hitting the target but not completely destroying it are very different comparisons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/8/2015 4:53:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not about "careers". You don't underestimate the enemy. Ever. That kind of arrogance has zero utility in the nuclear age. If the Russians can reliably put rockets into space to resupply the space station or launch a satellite without them blowing up on the launch pad [cough] NASA / USAF [/cough], then they can put a MIRV or ALCM / SLCM on target in some city somewhere. At the height of the Cold War, they even built a reusable Space Shuttleski that could be remotely piloted. They may have run out of money by the late '80s / early '90s, but the technology was there and it was done without the aid of computers; they did all that with an understanding of higher mathematics and a lot of chalkboard and little more. THAT's impressive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll remember this next time a certain somebody on this site tries to tell us how Russian military tech is so much more advanced than ours. I've listened to this argument my whole life. The US Defense community, especially aerospace, had a high regard for Russian missiles throughout the Cold War. No conflict to date supports those premises, especially when you look at Arab-Israeli Wars, Gulf War, Libya in the 80's, etc. Russians make garbage products, always have, always will. The resources and circumstances of their geography, demography, and climate simply don't allow quality to be part of the discussion unless it's stolen. They don't always get it wrong, and as soon as you make such assumptions, they may surprise the shit out of you. Meh. Can't make a career out of a cold war without it being a "significant threat." It's not about "careers". You don't underestimate the enemy. Ever. That kind of arrogance has zero utility in the nuclear age. If the Russians can reliably put rockets into space to resupply the space station or launch a satellite without them blowing up on the launch pad [cough] NASA / USAF [/cough], then they can put a MIRV or ALCM / SLCM on target in some city somewhere. At the height of the Cold War, they even built a reusable Space Shuttleski that could be remotely piloted. They may have run out of money by the late '80s / early '90s, but the technology was there and it was done without the aid of computers; they did all that with an understanding of higher mathematics and a lot of chalkboard and little more. THAT's impressive. I love how some people refuse to acknowledge that the Soviet military might of the 70-80s was a Maskirovka. They either didn't read the declassified sources after the end of the Cold War that showed that the USSR military was a hollow shell of an organization, or they have a vested interested ($) to make believe the Soviets Russian Federation are and should continue to be treated as a larger threat than they actually are. Remember how our intelligence agencies predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Yeah, I don't either. They were too busy writing assessments about how efficient the Soviets were, in order to guarantee the next quarter's funding. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
