/k/ - Weapons

>>550160

The naval variant can attack other ships.

The S-400 is the only thing worth a shit in the Russian arsenal so take it to train against it.

also technically a drone/cruise missile is a better delivery system, since it can carry more weight farther, and it can be built for less.

>some get bought

>another year of muh rusya

From a purely practical point of view? Of course we should.

If not to double our defense capabilities, for training and testing.

From a political point of view? The brass will nuke Washington DC twice before they accept equipping their armies with russian hardware.

What's more interesting in that statement, is that he is outright annoucing that Russia does not even consider the possibility that it might invade anyone allied to the US in the whatever the lifespan of these things is. Or, even more interesting possibilites: that, if it intentends to, it doesn't think anything flying will be worth worrying about.

Probably bluff and professional shitposting, but still.

The common sense answer is to buy at least enough for a single auxerially unit (for aggressor training and research at minimum). The political answer is never, as Raytheon is a front for the Military Industrial Complex. Raytheon is not a weapons company, they have virtually no research and development, and diliberately limited manufaturing. Raytheon today is build as a launderer for tax money, for the elected and unelected recipients hiding behind the Vanguard Group, Blackrock, and other investment firms.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000175&cycle=2016

https://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/institutional-portfolio/blackrock-inc-711679

>>550164

Well, their missile and rocket tech in general is better. Air to air, ground to air, anti ship, anti tank, ballistic missile, rocket artillery….. They only lag behind in air to ground.

Also a lot can be learned from their approaches to submarine design.

>>550164

Everything in the Russian arsenal is orders of magnitude better for the cost they pay, though. Between absurd levels of casualty aversion, pork barrels for Lockheed, and the general incompetence of the politicized brass is laughably wasteful and inefficient, and only continues to be formidable because of the sheer quantity of money we have available to throw at it.

>>550160

>There is no reason you couldn't put a nuke on the missiles the S-400 use, right?

iirc smallest warhead fits 150mm cannons

Probably just bluff, doubt they would actually sell any sizeable amount to the US although there might be some good propaganda purposes for it. If they did sell it, it's totally worth it but media pressure will be heavier than ever and US companies will be lobbying against this so hard and libshits will be screaming MUH DRUMPH NATZI RUSSIANS harder than ever.

>>550155

>US tests S400 vs. F35

>F35 fails miserably

>congress demands that the F35 be abandoned and a new project is started that is supposed to meet the same goals, but can avoid S400 missiles

>another gorillion is wasted, the F35V2 never enters service either

I can't wait.

>>550198

They already have S-500 about to enter service, so its not like S-400 is their final air defense evolution. And after that they have the S-1000 project in the pipeline, which has ramjet missiles with 1000km range against multiroles and may be mounted on AWACS like aircraft.

>>550198

What exactly prevents Raytheon from going full China on them?

If you say "honesty" I'm going to slap you.

>>550205

Maybe I am retarded or tired, but I don't get what you are saying.

>>550205

Nothing. But like I said Raytheon is already a generation behind Almaz SAM.

Once S-500 is introduced, copying S-400 would only keep Raytheon a generation behind.

Besides where do you think Raytheon got the idea for reaction thruster warheads? Almaz.

Apparently this is why, they are introducing new superior missiles across the board.

A-135 is a series of bunkerized air defenses around Moscow with 1216 ABM missiles, and they just upgraded it.

So if both the US and Russia (or just one nation) manage to create an anti-missile defense system that has a 99.9% success rate; what happens next? Do we revert to a pre-Nuclear-Era world?

>>550205

Raytheon has jackshit to offer, which is why we're in the Dark Ages in terms of ADA. It's a 50/50 split between of being by design to line pockets and politicians over the past 40 years acquiescing to the screeching and whining of liberals and other anti-war/anti-nuclear groups. 30 years ago we had an entire arsenal of ADA systems, all now decommissioned or abandoned, being replaced by fucking stop-gap bullshit like the Linebacker or Avenger, both are fucking existing systems someone slapped an armored box full of Stringers too. The fucking PATRIOT and THAAD are all fucking bottom-of-the-barrel trash.

>>550715

>So if both the US and Russia (or just one nation) manage to create an anti-missile defense system that has a 99.9% success rate; what happens next? Do we revert to a pre-Nuclear-Era world?

In the improbably, borderline impossible case of both nations creating an ABM with a 99.9% success rate, the development of other technologies to carry nuclear warheads would be increased, like hyper-sonic cruise missiles. An ABM just removes ballistic missiles as a viable deployment platform from the table, it doesn't remove nuclear weapons in whole from the table. In the case of one nation (which would undoubtedly be Russia, because we can do fucking shit right in terms of ADA) the other nation would be fucked royally turning the MAD theory further on it's head (just one nation in a MAD scenario having more launch systems or warheads fucks the entire theory anyway). Not to worry though, the amount of variables involved in making a successful ABM are far too vast to account for, which is why a 99% let alone a true 80% or 70% successful ABM system will never be developed.

>>550715

Nah. We just begin launching dummy missiles, and even the dummy missiles will have chaff and flare and half the warheads will be dummies as well.

Remember, no matter how many nukes don't make it through, one is enough to mostly destroy a city.

>>550234

Not well informed on this: what am I looking at here?

>>550761

Never got the point of MGs as a concept.

>>550781

How can you tell from this resolution?

>>550790

I disagree. The Metal Gear was more like an SPG mounting a railgun that can fire nukes. The walking thing was just so it could cover any terrain.

>>550787

>>550790

>>550795

Reminder

The big shocking reveal in MGS 4 is that they slap a nuke in a sub and prepare to launch it.

IN A FUCKING SUBMARINE

>>550799

Does it take place in the 50s?

>>550795

What are you disagreeing with exactly? It's called a metal gear because it's supposed to be the missing link between infantry and artillery, and artillery piece that can cover any terrain. But in practice it was supposed to be used the way I described it. True what is true, I didn't mention the nukes, but that should be self-explanatory. After all, it's often referred to as a walking MBT with nuclear weapons.

>>550799

No, the big reversal is that they want to launch a nuke against the satellite housing an AI sysem. I don't even know which one was it, but it had to do something with the Patriots.

>>550823

Link gives me blank page. Chill the fuck out.

>>550823

>>550830

> launches these nukes faster than ballistic missles

I know it's not exactly hard fiction but wouldn't a MG walker be rather small for a railgun of such caliber?

>>550192

I watched a doco years ago where a researcher said "I can't tell you the exact size and weight but think grenade use".

Of course this would be low yield but it would still shit all over conventional explosives.

>>550781

Oh, that's what I guessed anyway. Thanks anon.

>>550234

>>550781

CIA smuggled parts of S-300 since they were designed.

Some P variant parts were smuggled through Croatia, and PS from Ukraine.

I'm sure a country with Americas tech could learn a lot from them.

>>550720

Dummy missiles are a no-go when you can intercept more ICBM's than the enemy has, and for a lower expenditure in weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles

Once ICBM's become obsolete (at least, against any nation with the technology to shoot them down or destroy them before they can launch), you need other means of attack. SLBM's would be more effective since there's less warning (instead of silo doors opening, missiles fueling up and launching, all of which are detectable via satellite, and then a long flight time, you just get a missile popping out of the ocean and flying a shorter distance to the target), fractional-orbit ICBM's could be disguised as satellite launches, orbit the earth, then drop MIRV's on the enemy (and they have the advantage of being able to hit anywhere on the planet), hyper-sonic cruise missiles like the US and China are developing, and, of course, good old fashioned orbital bombardment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

>>550234

What is the veracity of the claim? I mean, are there any other photos other than some commercial sat imagery from 2007?

>>550906

They're still clearly there on the most recent photos.

That's the Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range of the USAF, they also clearly have, SA-3 and SA-5 if you just follow the road and know what to look for, you can also spot an ancient SA-2 site.

Slovakia, Greece and Bulgaria are in NATO and they all operate SA-10 it's not like it's some grand top secret CIA operation BS, to get some, that's probably the missing Slovak S-300PS battery (since it's roughly showed up when it went missing)… And why the US is so scared of them.

Again Russia doesn't give a fuck, I'm not even sure they still have a SA-10 anywhere in service.

They have a few SA-20 left most getting replaced by SA-21 and SA-23 batteries.

Air defense is the priority right after nukes in the Russian defense budget. New gear is deployed and adopted at a very fast pace.

>>550903

>Once ICBM's become obsolete

>space based weapons

Is Homefront happening?

>>551286

>Is Homefront happening?

I hope so. Just because San Francisco and Israel gets destroyed in the homefront universe

>>550824

Liquid was trying to launch at nuke at the satellite containing JD, the Patriot AI with the highest level of authority over the Patriots' systems. Liquid had control of one Patriot AI, GW, which gave him control over the SOP system and allowed him to disable conventional arms remotely, but only JD had access to nukes. GW was the next highest in the hierarchy, so by destroying JD, control over the nukes would revert to GW. The whole reason it's a big reveal is that REX's railgun is the only nuke launcher in the world that's both capable of hitting a satellite and isn't controlled by the Patriots, because REX was wrecked in the first MGS and assumed to be inoperable, so they never installed the AI control systems for it. Liquid goes to Shadow Moses and makes off with the railgun, which was apparently in good enough working order to install on his sub. That's internally consistent considering that REX itself is restored to working order by Otacon despite having been shot with enough rockets to destroy 20 Abrams tanks.

Yeah we should tbh. Or at least we should make a clone. I really can't understand how DOD is totally paralyzed by defense contractors Jewing them in the ass but somehow Russia, of all places, is getting its money's worth.